Summary
A reinstated employee challenged denial of salary and treatment of the intervening period as dies non. The Court held that those measures could not be imposed as an unlisted disciplinary punishment, but reinstatement did not automatically confer full salary. Setting aside both the High Court judgment and the decree awarding salary automatically, it directed the competent authority to determine treatment of the period from 13 March 2003 to 20 March 2009 and its consequences within three months.
Issues
- Whether the appellate disciplinary authority could impose denial of salary and dies non as punishment.
- Whether reinstatement automatically entitled the employee to full salary for the intervening period.
- Which authority should determine treatment of the period and resulting benefits.
Provisions considered
- Rule 7.3, Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part IOn reinstatement after removal, treatment of absence and the appropriate pay and allowances required a specific determination under the applicable scheme rather than automatic full salary. (¶¶ 11, 13, 15-17)
- Rule 15(v)(f), Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970The provision concerned appeal against an order determining treatment of the absence period. It did not itself authorise the disciplinary punishment imposed, but reflected the need for a separate lawful determination. (¶ 14-17)
Held
- Denial of salary and dies non, imposed as punishment by the departmental appellate authority, were not penalties contemplated by the disciplinary scheme. The challenged direction could not stand on that footing. (¶¶ 9-10, 16(1))
- Setting aside removal and ordering reinstatement did not inevitably entitle the employee to full salary for the whole absence. The civil courts erred in awarding salary automatically, while the High Court failed to distinguish that question from the validity of the purported punishment. (¶¶ 11, 15-16)
- Rule 7.3 addressed reinstatement after dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and required determination of pay and duty status. The Court distinguished the suspension-revocation setting addressed by Rule 7.3-B. (¶ 11-13)
- The competent authority was directed to decide treatment and consequential effects for 13 March 2003 to 20 March 2009 within three months. The Court did not itself grant full back wages or finally approve total denial of pay for that period. (¶ 16-17)
Result
Appeals allowed to the stated extent. The High Court judgment was set aside and the salary decree modified: neither the dies-non punishment nor automatic salary entitlement was sustained. The second respondent was directed to determine treatment of 13 March 2003–20 March 2009 and its consequences within three months. Parties were to bear their own costs.