0

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 

Click Here To View Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat