- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties on the applications for condonation of delay. Delay in filing both the appeals (L.P.A No.430/2012 and L.P.A No.526/2012) is condoned. The above I.As are allowed. L.P.A No.430/2012 It appears that due to quarrel between the wives of two employees, the petitioner -respondent, husband of one of the ladies, was subjected to a departmental enquiry with the allegation that because of that quarrel, there was disturbance of the peace and tranquillity in the Housing Colony and with another allegation that the petitioner assaulted the Milk Vendor. The petitioner was punished with the order of removal of service, vide order dated 1st February, 1999. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on 3rd April, 1999. The petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition, being W.P (S) No.6105/2006, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge after holding that in fact, no evidence was produced to show that the petitioner was present on the spot at the time of quarrel between the two ladies. Learned Single Judge also held that there was no evidence in support of the alleged assault to the Milk Vendor, Sri Dhari Chand Rai and thereafter, learned Single Judge further held that an order to vacate the quarters was served upon the petitioner; however, he did not vacate the quarters even after taking the order and he stated to the Officer that he will talk with the higher Officers. Learned Single Judge observed that the higher Officers failed to do conciliation of the two ladies and failed to take steps for shifting one of them to another building and instead of doing so, they have taken extreme step of removing the petitioner from service.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge proceeded to appreciate and reapprise the evidence and therefore, has committed error of jurisdiction because of the reason that the writ jurisdiction is not the appellate jurisdiction in the departmental proceedings. We are, thus, of the considered opinion that for a trival issue, a departmental enquiry was initiated but in the departmental enquiry also, there was no sufficient evidence to hold the petitioner guilty and therefore, learned Single Judge rightly observed that the petitioner has wrongly been held guilty. It is not a case of appreciation and reappreciation of evidence but in view of the finding recorded by learned Single Judge, so far as presence of the petitioner on the spot at the time of quarrel is concerned, that was without any evidence at all. Another charge with respect to non compliance of the order to vacate the quarters is concerned, that was found to be proved in view of the fact that the order was served upon the petitioner and he did not vacate the same, is an admitted fact. However, learned Single Judge observed that it was a trival issue and for that, such a harsh punishment could not have been imposed. In totality of the facts of this case, no case is made out for our interference in appellate jurisdiction in such facts, of which we have referred above. It has been submitted by the petitioner appellant that once it has been held that the petitioner was not guilty of any misconduct, then petitioner could not have been denied backwages. It is submitted that from the facts it is clear that the petitioner was not present at the time of quarrel between the two ladies and therefore, he did not even disturb to the peace of the Housing Colony. It is also submitted that in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, exonerating the petitioner totally, in that situation the principle of no work, no pay could not be applied and he is entitled to full backwages. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V.Jankiraman reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010, wherein it has been held that normal rule of no work no pay is not applicable to cases such as the case which was before Hon'ble Supreme Court where the employee was found to be willing to work but was kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his and such observation has been made in the case where the employee was exonerated in the departmental proceeding. 2. There is no dispute in the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case. However, in this case, the fact is slightly different. In this case, finding of even learned Single Judge in paragraph 16 is that there was quarrel between the two ladies, one is wife of the petitioner. It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that in that situation, one of the employees should have been transferred to another quarters. In this case, such an order was passed by the Officer and admittedly that order was not complied by the petitioner. Therefore, in this situation, learned Single Judge, instead of awarding backwages and part of the backwages, awarded a lump sum of Rs.2 lacs. We are, thus, of the view that the judgment impugned requires no interference and the relief awarded to the petitioner is just and proper in the facts of the case.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY both L.P.As along with stay petition (I.A No. 3165/2012) are dismissed.;