SUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL) AND ORS.versusK.K. PAVITHERAN

        SUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL) AND ORS.                             A
                                     v.
                           K.K. PA VITHERAN

                          SEPTEMBER 30, 1996

           [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                              B

      Service Law:

      Post and Telegraph Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Services)
Rules, 1964:                                                                   C
       Rule ~Extra Departmental Agent-Misconduct-Departmental
proceedings-Removal from service-On Tribunal's directions on recon-
sideration of quantum of punishment appellant reinstated-Claim for back
wages-Tribunal allowed the claim-Held imposition of punishment is in the
discretion of the disciplinary authority-Discretion to be exercised proper-    D
ly-Punishment of removal having been converted into reinstatement with
lesser punishment, Tribunal was not right in directing payment of back wages
since the respondent was found responsible for misconduct.

      Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhagyo Mal & Ors.,         E
[19941 Supp. 1 sec 573.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13115-16
of 1996.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.95 and 20.2.96 of the              F
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in Kerala in O.A. No. 787/94
and R.A. No. 2 of 1996.

      A.S. Nambiar, T.C. Sharma and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants.

      K.M.K. Nair for the Respondent.                                          G
      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Delay condoned.

      Leave granted.                                                           H
                                    95
    96                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A         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)
B   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 unsuc-
C   cessfully 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
D   leave petition before this Court which was dismissed. Consequently, the
    respondent was reinstated. He again filed an application. In the im-
    pugned 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.
E
         This Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhagyo
  Mal & Ors., [1994] Supp. 1 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
F dismissal into stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. There-
  fore, 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 to discre-
  tion properly taking into . consideration all the relevant ·facts and cir-
G cumstances. In 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
H directing payment of back-wages for the reason that the respondent was
              SUB-DIVNL. INSPECTOR (POSTAL)v. KK PAVITIIERAN              97

     found to be responsible for misconduct though lesser punishment was        A
     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.

     R.P.                                                    Appeals allowed.   B




•'