Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Vs. K. Rajaram Appasamy
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.3138-3140 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23253-55 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1996 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No. 2354, 2477 and 6373 of 1993)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23253-55 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1996 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No. 2354, 2477 and 6373 of 1993)
Petitioner: Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
Respondent: K. Rajaram Appasamy
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.3138-3140 of 1997.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23253-55 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1996 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No. 2354, 2477 and 6373 of 1993)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.23253-55 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.1996 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No. 2354, 2477 and 6373 of 1993)
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 21, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Advocate for the Appellants.
Dr. V. Gourishankar, Senior Advocate, and S. Rajappa, Advocate with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Tamil Nadu Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, – Rule 17 (b) – Unauthorised absence from duty – Departmental enquiry – Followed by removal – Administrative Tribunal setting aside order of dismissal awarding 50% back wages from date of absence till date of application and full back wages thereafter, till re-instatement -Entitlement thereof – Held that there was nothing on the part of State Govt. which prevented the respondent from attending duties, hence, orders by Tribunal to pay 50% wages from date of absence till date of application, and thereafter full wages accordingly set aside.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. These appeals by special leave arise from the Order dated May 14, 1996 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. Nos.2354, 2477 and 6373 of 1993. The admitted facts are that the respondent was working as a doctor. He proceeded on leave and made a representation on June 27, 1987 with regard to his posting. He did not report for duty for five years from May 1, 1982. A departmental enquiry came to be conducted against the respondent, under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The competent authority removed him from service on the ground that the respondent was found to be unauthorisedly absent from duty for five years. The Tribunal is its impugned order set aside the order of his removal from service and directed to pay 50% of the back wages till the date of filing of the original application and full back wages from the date of filing of the original applications till the date of reinstatement. This Court issued notice confined to the question of respondent’s entitlement to back wages. It would be obvious that the respondent did not choose to join the duty for five years. There is nothing on the part of the State Government which prevented the respondent from attending to his duties. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal is wholly wrong in its direction to the appellants to pay 50% of the back wages from the date of his absence till the date of filing of the original application and back wages thereafter till his reinstatement. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the direction to pay back wages stands set aside. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. These appeals by special leave arise from the Order dated May 14, 1996 passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A. Nos.2354, 2477 and 6373 of 1993. The admitted facts are that the respondent was working as a doctor. He proceeded on leave and made a representation on June 27, 1987 with regard to his posting. He did not report for duty for five years from May 1, 1982. A departmental enquiry came to be conducted against the respondent, under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The competent authority removed him from service on the ground that the respondent was found to be unauthorisedly absent from duty for five years. The Tribunal is its impugned order set aside the order of his removal from service and directed to pay 50% of the back wages till the date of filing of the original application and full back wages from the date of filing of the original applications till the date of reinstatement. This Court issued notice confined to the question of respondent’s entitlement to back wages. It would be obvious that the respondent did not choose to join the duty for five years. There is nothing on the part of the State Government which prevented the respondent from attending to his duties. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal is wholly wrong in its direction to the appellants to pay 50% of the back wages from the date of his absence till the date of filing of the original application and back wages thereafter till his reinstatement. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the direction to pay back wages stands set aside. No costs.
