The issue of entitlement of back wages has no straitjacket formula and even after punishment imposed upon the employee is quashed by the court, the payment of back wages still remains discretionary: Patna High Court
This case was filled by Santosh Kumar S/o Jagnarayan Ram R/o Vill – Sahejni, P.S. – Piro, DistBhojpur at Ara against The State of Bihar. The Judgment in Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar (Citation: CWJC No.2068 of 2021) was served by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This was a Writ Petition in the nature of certiorari filled before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950. In this case the Petitioner has been dismissed from service on the allegation that he was spreading hatredness through video clipping being a police officer. Perusal of the records it is evident that no reasons have been recorded except stating the alleged allegations. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has made out a prima facie case so as to interfere with the disciplinary authority and appellate authority’s order dated 05.04.2020 and 06.11.2020.
Through this case the Petitioner seeks the court to aside the appellate impugned orders dated 6th November 2020 issued by the superintendent of Police, Buxar and subsequently for setting aside the initial dismissal order dated 5th April 2020 issued by the D.I.G. Police, Sahabad Range, Dehri-on-son whereby without any due notice, the Petitioner has been terminated in a dictatorship manner. Further the Petitioner also wants the Court to issue a writ of mandamus asking the Respondents to reinstate Petitioner on his previous post, forthwith with his full arrears with 18% interest, current and consequential benefits within a short fixed period. At last the petitioner seeks court to direct the Respondents to pay the appropriate cost and compensation for unnecessary mental, physical and economical harassment.
JUDGEMENT:
After due consideration of all the arguments, the learned court disposed of the Petition and held that before initiation and conclusion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority is supposed to take a decision as to whether petitioner is required to be placed under suspension or he shall be re-instated. More so the court directed the Respondents authorities to take the decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY: AKANKSHA