http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL) & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: K.K. PAVITHERAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted      Heard learned counsel on both sides.      The respondent  while in  service as Extra-Departmental Agent  was   charge-sheeted,  for  misconduct  of  temporary absence from  duty,  under  Rule  8  of  the  P  &  T  Extra Departmental Agents  (Conduct and  Services) Rules,  1964 on June 6,  1985. By order dated March 31,1986, the enquiry was cancelled  and   fresh  enquiry  was  conducted.  Later,  on conclusion of the departmental enquiry proceedings, by order dated July 9, 1990, the respondent was removed from service. He filed  an application in the Tribunal. By order dated May 28,   1992,   the   Tribunal   remitted   the   matter   for reconsideration on  the nature of punishment. That order was unsuccessfully challenged  in  this  Court  and  had  become final. Subsequently,  when the  order of  removal was passed again, it  was challenged  in the  Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated  September 4,  1993 quashed  the proceedings and directed reconsideration of the quantum of punishment on the basis of  amended rules.  Again, it  was challenged  in  the special  leave   petition  before   this  Court   which  was dismissed. Consequently,  the respondent  was reinstated. He again filed  an application.  In the  impugned  order  dated December 5,  1995 made  in O.A.  No.787/94, the Tribunal has directed payment  of  back-wages.  Thus,  these  appeals  by special leave.      This  Court   in   Rajasthan   State   Road   Transport Corporation vs.  Bhagyo Mal  & Ors.  [194 supp.(l)  SCC 573] held  that   while  the   High  Court  had  found  that  the respondent-employee deserved  punishment on  account of  his misconduct, and  awarded lesser punishment, it is not liable to grant  back-wages  particularly  when  the  Tribunal  had converted the  order  of  dismissal  into  stoppage  of  two increments with  cumulative effect.  Therefore, the order of the High  Court was  set aside  to that  effect. It  is  now settled law  that  imposition  of  punishment    is  in  the discretion of  the disciplinary authority. But the authority is expected  to exercise the discretion properly taking into consideration all  the relevant  facts and circumstances. In

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

this case,  the punishment  of removal  was found  to be not justified for the reason that the respondent was temporarily absent from  duty. But  the order  of dismissal  having been converted into  one of reinstatement with lesser punishment, the question  arises whether  the respondent  is entitled to back-wages? The  Tribunal was not right in directing payment of back-wages  for the  reason that the respondent was found to be  responsible for  misconduct though  lesser punishment was imposed.  Under these  circumstances and  following  the above judgment,  we hold that the respondent is not entitled to back wages.      The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.