1. These two petitions arise out of the order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, Gandhinagar dated 20/10/1999 in Appeal No: 23 of 1997, whereby the termination order passed by the District Health Officer, Gandhinagar dated 22/01/1996 was quashed and set aside.
2. The employee, who is petitioner, in SCA No.8452 of 2000, was terminated without following any procedure stipulated under rules, by the order of District Health Officer, Gandhinagar dated 22/01/1996, which was challenged by the said employee before the Tribunal. The Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal, recorded categorical finding that no procedure, not even issuance of charge-sheet, was followed by the authorities before terminating the service of the said employee, who was appellant before it. With this finding, Tribunal set aside the termination order dated 22/01/1996, which was impugned before it. Tribunal also directed the disciplinary authority to hold proceedings in accordance with law and pass appropriate order. Tribunal further ordered that the period from the date of termination till reinstatement of the employee be treated as leave without pay. It is this order of the Tribunal which is challenged by both, the employee as well as the disciplinary authority. The petition filed by employee is SCA 8452 OF 2000 and that by the Disciplinary Authority is SCA 7674 OF 2002.
3. The grievance voiced on behalf of the employee is to the effect that after having found that the termination order was passed without following any procedure, the Tribunal ought not to have refused back wages and the reinstatement of the employee ought to have been with consequential benefits.
4. On the other hand, the case of the Disciplinary Authority in the petition is to the effect that, not only the employee is not entitled to any back wages, Tribunal ought not to have interfered at all in the termination order dated 22/01/1996.
5. Learned Advocate Mr.Raval for the petitioner authority in SCA 7674 of 2002, at the out stated that he has instructions not to press this petition at this stage, in view of the subsequent developments. It is pointed out that the departmental inquiry, as ordered by the Tribunal was already conducted and ultimately no punishment under the rules, is imposed on the employee, by the Disciplinary Authority, who is petitioner in this case, and according to him the chapter stands closed. It is pointed out that even an order to that effect is passed on 27/02/2009. Under these circumstances SCA No.7674 of 2002 stands dismissed as not pressed.
6. So far as SCA No.8452 of 2000 is concerned, the only point which is required to be decided is whether the employee was entitled to back wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. The said period is indicated to be from 23.1.1996 to 23.12.1999. Two factors are required to be considered while answering this question. One is that the Tribunal recorded finding that the inquiry was not conducted at all and the challenge to that part of the order of the Tribunal is now given up at this stage. Even otherwise, it is evident from the record that no inquiry, not even issuance of charge-sheet was undertaken by the authorities and, therefore, even if, ultimately the charge was held to be proved, back wages ought not to have been denied to the employee. In the present case, further it is found that even after holding the inquiry, the chapter is closed by the authorities without any punishment. In these circumstances, to deny back wages to the employee for the period from 23.1.1996 to 23.12.1999, would not only be illegal but would be adding an insult to injury. Considering the totality of the case, it is held that tribunal was not justified to deny back wages for the said period to the employee and this petition is required to be allowed. The order of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the employee shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including the arrears of pay for the period from her termination to reinstatement. The said payment shall be made to the petitioner employee within a period of three months from today.
7.1 In the result, SCA No.7674 of 2002 stands dismissed as not pressed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
7.2 SCA No.8452 of 2000 is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.) Sompura