Justice Delayed, Salary Restored: High Court Upholds Constable's Right to Back Wages After 18-Year Dismissal

 

A Landmark Ruling on "No Work No Pay" Principle and Disproportionate Punishment

In a significant judgment delivered on August 20, 2024, the High Court of Judicature at Patna, presided over by Honourable Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh, ruled in favor of Mahendra Prasad Chauhan, a former constable of the Bihar Military Police, setting aside the denial of his salary for an 18-year period during which he was illegally dismissed from service. This case, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16967 of 2012, delves into the nuances of administrative law, the "no work no pay" principle, and the implications of disproportionate punishment, offering crucial insights for a broader audience interested in labor rights and judicial oversight in India.

The Genesis of the Dispute: Dismissal, Reinstatement, and a Fight for Back Wages

Mahendra Prasad Chauhan (the petitioner) was appointed as a Constable in Bihar Military Police (BMP)-9, Jamalpur, on January 18, 1991. However, his service was abruptly terminated on April 18, 1993, during his training period, following a departmental proceeding. The charges against him included breaking/opening locks of other constables' boxes and stealing money, as well as illegally or unauthorizedly staying in the barrack and engaging in "merry making."

Aggrieved by his dismissal, Chauhan challenged the order before the High Court in CWJC No. 9266 of 1997. In a pivotal decision on August 12, 2010, the High Court quashed his dismissal order. The Court found that the punishment of dismissal was "disproportionate to the misconduct alleged" and highlighted that the authorities had applied "two yardsticks" by imposing a much lesser punishment on another delinquent employee, Binod Gond, who faced similar charges. Binod Gond had only received a penalty of withholding increment with cumulative effect for two years, amounting to three "black marks." The High Court, therefore, directed the respondents (the State of Bihar and the Commandant, Bihar Military Police-2) to pass a fresh order of punishment for Chauhan, keeping in mind the punishment imposed on Binod Gond.

In compliance with this order, Chauhan was reinstated in service on March 16, 2012, on the post of constable. His salary was subsequently fixed with effect from January 1, 1996, and revised periodically. However, the disciplinary authority, relying on the principle of "no work no pay," denied him salary for the entire period of his dismissal, from April 18, 1993, to March 16, 2012—a staggering 18 years.

This denial of back wages became the central point of contention in the present writ petition. Chauhan sought several reliefs, including the quashing of the order denying his salary for the dismissal period, the grant of all reliefs extended to Binod Gond, and the provision of all benefits such as promotion, salary, and other allowances, given that his dismissal had been set aside by the High Court.

Arguments Presented: "No Work No Pay" vs. Illegal Dismissal

Petitioner's Arguments:

Mr. Satya Ranjan Sinha, along with Ms. Seema Kumari and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, representing the petitioner, argued that Chauhan's dismissal was not due to his own fault. They reiterated that the High Court had already found no clear evidence against him regarding the theft or unauthorized stay. The core of their argument was that since the dismissal itself was deemed illegal and disproportionate by the High Court, denying salary for the intervening period was effectively imposing a "more penal consequence" and was unjust. They emphasized that Chauhan did not deliberately absent himself but was prevented from working due to an illegal dismissal order. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in Pradeep, S/o Rajkumar Jain Vs. Manganese Ore (India) Limited & others (2022(3) SCC 683) to support their claim for back wages.

Respondent's Arguments:

Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Singh, representing the respondents, countered by asserting that the principle of "no work no pay" was rightly applied. He argued that since Chauhan did not perform any work during the dismissal period, he was not entitled to salary for those 18 years. He stated that Chauhan's pay was correctly fixed from the date of his reinstatement (March 16, 2012) and that arrears of fixed pay along with admissible dearness allowances were being paid from that date. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7657 of 2004) to contend that the petitioner was not even entitled to any percentage of pay during the dismissal period.

The High Court's Deliberation: A Deep Dive into Legal Precedents

Justice Purnendu Singh meticulously analyzed the arguments, focusing on three key questions:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of pay for the dismissal period (April 18, 1993, to March 16, 2012).
2. Whether the "no work no pay" principle applies in a situation where a dismissal order was set aside by the High Court due to disproportionate punishment and unequal application of penalties.
3. Whether the High Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction, can interfere with an administrative action that defeats the legal right of the petitioner.

The Court began by reiterating the findings of the previous High Court order (CWJC No. 9266 of 1997), which had clearly established that the disciplinary authority could not apply "two yardsticks" for similar charges, imposing a harsher penalty on Chauhan compared to Binod Gond. The previous order had quashed Chauhan's dismissal and directed the authorities to impose a punishment similar to that of Binod Gond.

The Court noted that in compliance with this order, Chauhan was reinstated, but the denial of salary for 18 years on the "no work no pay" principle effectively imposed a "more penal consequence" on him, even after his dismissal was deemed illegal. The Court found no pleading from the respondents suggesting that Chauhan would not be entitled to reinstatement from the date of his original dismissal.

Relevance of Cited Judgments:

The High Court then addressed the judgments cited by both parties. It observed that both Pradeep, S/o Raj Kumar Jain (cited by petitioner) and J. K. Synthetics Ltd. (cited by respondents) pertained to cases under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court concluded that these judgments "would not be relevant in any manner to decide the issues involved in the present case" as the present case involved a public servant and principles of administrative law, not industrial disputes.

The Principle of Reinstatement and Consequential Benefits:

The High Court emphasized that "reinstatement in service would be made operative from the date the petitioner was dismissed from service and once the removal is set aside, the liability of the Government to pay the person concern his salary and increment for the period which is covered by the order of dismissal is automatic." The Court reasoned that since Chauhan's penalty was ultimately made similar to Binod Gond's, the denial of salary for the period of illegal dismissal was unwarranted.

To support its reasoning, the Court relied on several Supreme Court pronouncements:

1. Krishna Murari Lal Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1233): The Court cited this case to underscore that once a judgment sets aside an illegal dismissal, the payment of salary for the intervening period becomes a necessary consequence to implement the judgment.

2. Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED) & Ors. ((2013) 10 SCC 324): This judgment was extensively quoted by the High Court. Key takeaways from this citation include:

   • Meaning of Reinstatement: The Supreme Court defined "reinstatement" as restoring an employee to the exact position they held before dismissal, implying that they should be put in the same financial and professional state as if the illegal action had never occurred.
   • Impact of Illegal Termination: The Supreme Court highlighted the severe adversities faced by an employee and their family when their source of income is cut off due to an illegal dismissal.
   • Entitlement to Full Back Wages: The judgment explicitly states that "The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages."
   • Burden of Proof for Denying Back Wages: Crucially, the Supreme Court placed the burden on the employer to "specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments" if they wish to deny back wages.
   • Punishing the Employee, Rewarding the Employer: The Supreme Court warned that "The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments."

3. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others (1993 (4) SCC 727): While this case primarily dealt with the entitlement to back wages when a fresh inquiry is ordered after setting aside a dismissal, the High Court used it to reinforce the idea that the period from dismissal to reinstatement should be treated according to law, and benefits should be decided based on the final outcome. In Chauhan's case, since the dismissal was set aside and a lesser punishment was imposed, the period of non-work was not attributable to his fault.

The Verdict: Setting Aside the Denial of Salary

Based on the comprehensive analysis of facts, circumstances, and the established legal principles from the Supreme Court, Justice Purnendu Singh concluded that the non-payment of salary for the entire 18-year period, for which the petitioner could not be held responsible, on the principle of "no work no pay," needed to be reconsidered by the respondents.

Therefore, the High Court passed the following order:

• "The order contained in Memo No.4907 dated 18.11.2011 to the extent that the denial of petitioner’s due salary for total period of 18 years on the principle of no work no pay is set aside."
• "The other parts of the said order shall remain intact." (This implies that the revised punishment, similar to Binod Gond's, remains valid).
• "The writ petition is allowed to the above extent."

Broader Implications and Significance of the Judgment

This judgment by the Patna High Court is highly significant for several reasons:

1. Reinforcement of Employee Rights: It strongly reaffirms the rights of employees, particularly public servants, who have been subjected to illegal or disproportionate disciplinary actions. It clarifies that when a dismissal is set aside due to procedural infirmities or disproportionality, the employee cannot be penalized further by denying them back wages on the "no work no pay" principle, especially when their absence from duty was not voluntary.

2. Limiting "No Work No Pay" Application: The ruling provides a crucial clarification on the applicability of the "no work no pay" principle. It establishes that this principle does not automatically apply when an employee's inability to work stems from an illegally imposed dismissal order. The burden shifts to the employer to prove gainful employment elsewhere if they wish to deny back wages.

3. Importance of Proportionality in Punishment: The case underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that disciplinary authorities impose punishments that are proportionate to the misconduct. The initial High Court order (CWJC No. 9266 of 1997) highlighted the "two yardsticks" applied, which led to the entire chain of events culminating in this judgment.

4. Consequential Benefits of Reinstatement: The judgment emphasizes that reinstatement is not merely a symbolic act; it entails restoring the employee to their original position with all consequential benefits, including salary, unless there are legally justifiable reasons (with the burden on the employer) to deny them.

5. Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: This case serves as a powerful example of how High Courts, through their writ jurisdiction, can effectively review and correct arbitrary or illegal administrative actions that adversely affect the rights of individuals.

In essence, the Patna High Court's decision in Mahendra Prasad Chauhan's case is a victory for justice and fairness. It sends a clear message to disciplinary authorities that their actions must be legally sound, proportionate, and equitable, and that employees who suffer due to illegal dismissals are entitled to full redressal, including the restoration of their rightful earnings. This ruling will undoubtedly serve as a crucial precedent in similar cases involving public sector employees in India.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTY5NjcjMjAxMiMxI04=-iVITygDOm9g=