New Delhi, Jan 21: The bench comprising of Justice L.Nageswara Rao & Justice Hemant Gupta passed a judgement in the case titled as Om Pal Singh v. Disciplinary Authority & Ors.
Facts of the case are that the Appellant worked as an officer of Regional Rural Bank Services with the Muzaffarnagar Bank. The allegations against petitioner are as follows:
• He did not comply with the directions and regulations of Head Office.
• He has worked against the interest of Bank/Injurious work,
• He was unauthorizedly absent.
• He was isolated for the interest of the Bank.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Disciplinary Authority to re-examine the matter afresh. The High Court was of the opinion that the charges framed against the Appellant were fully proved and the imposition of penalty was commensurate with the delinquency of the Appellant as the penalty imposed on the Appellant was not shockingly disproportionate.
Appellant alleged that he shall be entitled to payment of the salary during the period of his suspension as the order of dismissal was set aside and substituted by a lesser punishment. According to him, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ shall not apply to the instant case.
The only question that arises before the Supreme Court in the appeal is whether the Appellant is entitled to payment of salary for the period of suspension.
The Supreme Court held that the reinstatement by itself is a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment. However, the Court was of the opinion that award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action against the misconduct committed by the employee, which should be avoided.
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the decision of the Disciplinary Authority in not paying the salary for the period of suspension cannot be said to be contrary to law.
|