Summary
After removal of a municipal school headmaster had been quashed, the Court held that denying all back wages merely because he had not worked was unjustified. A second inquiry had been convened without reasons for rejecting the first exonerating report. Given prolonged litigation and superannuation, reopening disciplinary proceedings was inappropriate. The Court awarded Rs.5 lakhs as full and final settlement of back wages, in addition to the retiral benefits already granted.
Issues
- Whether complete denial of back wages was justified after the removal was held unlawful.
- What relief was appropriate given the defective second inquiry, lengthy litigation and retirement.
Held
- A disciplinary authority differing from an inquiry report had to record reasons; it could not simply convene a fresh inquiry on its own assertion. The High Court correctly found the removal unlawful, and that finding was not challenged by the municipality. (¶ 7–8)
- Back-wage relief required judicial consideration of the relevant circumstances rather than automatic denial because no work was rendered. The Court applied the principles concerning wrongful termination, gainful employment and reasons for departure from normal consequential relief. (¶¶ 9–11, 13)
- A fresh disciplinary decision might ordinarily have been possible, but reopening the matter after an eighteen-year writ proceeding and retirement in 2005 was neither expedient nor fair. (¶ 12)
- A lump sum of Rs.5 lakhs met the ends of justice as full and final settlement of the back-wage claim from removal to superannuation, additional to the High Court’s retiral-benefit award. (¶ 13–15)
Result
Appeal disposed of without costs. Municipality to pay Rs.5 lakhs in full and final settlement of back wages within two months of receipt of a certified copy, in addition to retiral benefits under the High Court order.