Government of Tamil Nadu and anr. Vs. Rajaram Appasamy K. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....wages - rule 17 of tamil nadu services (discipline and appeal) rules - appeal against judgment of tribunal directing reinstatement of respondent with full back wages - respondent had proceeded on leave and did not report back to appellant for a period of five years - departmental enquiry carried on under rule 17 (b) terminated services on grounds of unauthorised leave - nothing on part of state government-appellant prevented respondent from attending his duties - held, respondent stands terminated from services and not entitled to back wages. - motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 163-a; [s.b. sinha & v.s. sirpurkar,jj] compensation -whether the deceased was driving the motorcycle or riding as pillion not known tribunal awarded compensation only taking into..........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 application 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.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Mr. K. Ramaswamy, J.

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. 2345, 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 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 in 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 application 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.