The Single Judge rejected the petitioner's claim for back wages and 'on duty' status following an appellate order modifying removal to re-engagement in post-acquittal emergency services employment.
No back wages or 'on duty' status; Appellate order affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No. 4167 of 2004
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed challenging the orders dated 10.03.1997 passed by the Appellate authority wherein the Appellate authority had modified the orders of removal to that of re-engaging the petitioner as causal driver-Grade II without any back wages and that the period from the date of his removal from service till re-engagement be treated as ‘Not on duty’.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was removed from service as he was involved in a criminal case, but later he was acquitted by the Criminal Court. Thereafter, the Appellate authority took a lenient view and modified the punishment of removal to that of re-engaging him into service. He further contends that the Appellate authority ought to have granted back wages and also ought to have treated the period from the date of his removal from service till re-engagement as ‘on duty’ and also would have directed the respondent to pay the back wages.
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Appellate authority took a lenient view and modified the punishment of removal to that of re-engaging the petitioner service. Therefore, no further lenient view can be shown in the case of the petitioner.
This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the considered view that the Appellate authority has rightly passed orders modifying the punishment of removal from service to that of re-engagement. Therefore, no further relief can be granted to the petitioner.
2
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
writ petition shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
26th November, 2018 dv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Appellate authority erred in not granting back wages when modifying removal to re-engagement.
Petitioner
Respondent
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
