Union of India and Anr Vs. Babu Lal Yadav [2008] Insc 254 (21 February 2008)
A.K.Mathur
& Altamas Kabir
O R D
E R CIVIL APPEAL NO.1467 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9330 of 2006)
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Delay
condoned.
Leave
granted.
This
appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11th November, 2005 in D.B.Civil
Special Appeal (W) No. 290 of 2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the order
of the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has reduced the punishment of
dismissal from service to the stoppage of six grade increments with future
effect. Learned Single Judge further directed that 50% of back wages be also
paid from the date of filing of the writ petition.
The
facts of the case are that the respondent herein was appointed as Constable in
the Border Security -2- Force on 13th June, 1975. Thereafter he was promoted from time to time. He remained
absent for a long time. Therefore, a notice was issued to him but he did not
respond and ultimately, he was removed from service. This removal was
challenged by the respondent (herein) and the learned Single Judge having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case modified the order of removal
from service to the withholding of six grade increments with future effect and
awarded 50% of backwages.
Aggrieved
against this order, the Union of India filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the
Division Bench. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single
Judge. The Division Bench observed that the appellant herein was aware that the
respondent was not keeping well and was also aware about the extension of his
leave on medical ground from time to time. Having regard to this consideration,
the Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
Having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the litigation is
going on from a very long time and the respondent is almost on the verge of
retirement, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. However, we modify
the order of the Division -3- Bench to the extent that the respondent will not
get the benefit of payment of 50% backwages from the date of filing of the writ
petition as this misery has been invited by respondent himself.
Be
that as it may, we are not interfering in this appeal, but we modify the order
of the Division Bench to the extent that the punishment recorded by the learned
Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of the stoppage of six grade
increments with future effect is maintained but he will not be entitled to any
benefit of backwages whatsoever. This is because of the fact that the incumbent
is almost reaching at the age of superannuation. Therefore, looking to these
facts, we affirm the order of the Division Bench with the modification that he
will not be entitled to any benefit of backwages. However, this will not affect
the retiral benefits of the respondent.
The
appeal is accordingly, disposed of.
The
stay order passed by this Court on 11th May, 2006 is vacated.
Back
Pages: 1 2
