Judgment:
P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) In this writ petition the petitioner has sought directions that he be given the same pay which he was drawing on 21.9.70. the date on which he was removed from service and he should be given increment which have become due after three years of the re-instatement falling due after 21.9.70 and he should be given his seniority which he was holding prior to his services being terminated and directions be given to respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal of the petitioner which he had filed on 7th May, 1975 against the order dated 18.1.71.
(2) Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are-that the petitioner was employed with Desu as a Work Charge Store Mate on 29.12.60 and was confirmed as Asstt. Time Keeper in the pay scale of Rs. 110-180 vide office order dated 19.1.70. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and he was charge-sheeted and an inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 7.7.69 found him guilty of one of the charges. Vide memo dated 28.3.70 respondent No. 3 served a show cause notice on the petitioner mentioning that he agreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and penalty of removal from service was proposed to be imposed. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and vide order dated l9th/21st Sep. 1970 the petitioner was removed with immediate effect. The petitioner filed an appeal on 16.10.70 with the Deputy G.M.
(3) The petitioner inspire of reminding the appellate authority could not get his appeal decided and he is stated to have met the appellate authority and had verbally been informed by the Deputy G.M. that he was not being reinstated. The petitioner again approached the Dy. G.M. who informed him that the Vigilance Deptt. was not inclined to take the petitioner back in service. As his appeal was not being decided and he was not being communicated officially regarding the fate of his appeal, the petitioner filed C.W. No. 1081 of 1971 on 6.10.71 seeking directions to the appellate authority to decide his appeal. In pursuance to the order of the Court, the appeal file was produced before the Court and it was revealed that an order dt. 18.1.71 had been made by the appellate authority which is to the following effect :-
'I have examined the case and keeping in view his young age and 'A' & 'B' of A.V.O's note on page 6 ante, he may be re-instated as a fresh hand and the intervening period should be treated as break in service and no increment should be given for three years. He should never be posted as cashier, store clerk or Time Keeper.'
The file also contained a subsequent order dt. 8.10.71 to the following effect :-
'I have seen the documents in original and find that there is no ground in the appeal of Shri Singhal and as such, his appeal is rejected.'
(4) However, before the Court the only prayer made by the petitioner was that the first order dt. 18.1.71 made by the appellate authority should be considered as final order and the said order be directed to be implemented. This plea of the petitioner was conceded by the department and the W.P. was disposed of on 29.7.74 by Dalip K. Kapur, J. (as His Lordship then was) with the directions that the order dt. 18.1.71 shall be enforced by the department and the subsequent order dt. 8.10.71 shall not be acted upon. A copy of the judgment of the High Court is Annexure 'B' to the present writ petition.
(5) The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he should not be treated as a newly appointed employee but should be treated as reinstated from the date of the order which was to be implemented and his three increments should be withheld only from the date when he was removed from service and he should be given seniority from the date of his joining the service meaning thereby that there should not be any break in service. He has also prayed that as he had filed an appeal before the higher appellate authority against the order dt. 18.1.71 directions should be given that authority concerned should dispose of that appeal.
(6) It is evident that both the parties are bound by the previous judgment given by this Court and the order dt. 18.1.71 has to be Implemented by the respondents and neither the petitioner nor the respondents can now go beyond the said order which has become final between the parties. I have also reproduced the said order above and the question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner was to be-reinstated to his previous post or he was to be re-appointed as a fresh hand as mentioned in the order. The order had used two contradictory expressions. The word ''reinstate' means that a person should be put back to his old position. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edition, the word 'reinstate' means that who had been dismissed was to be replaced in the same position from which he had been dismissed so as to restore the status quo ante dismissal. It is also mentioned therein that the roan had to be reinstated at the same place of work. In Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, the word 'reinstate' has been defined to mean to place in a former state, condition or office, to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed. So according to the legal meaning of the word 'reinstate' the petitioner was to be put back in his post which he was holding earlier but the words used in the order show that he was to be taken as a fresh hand. If the latter words are taken in isolation they may go to mean that the petitioner was to be given fresh appointment. But in order to see the real meaning of the order the whole order has to be read and interpreted. It is indeed not in dispute before me that according to the disciplinary rules there is no power given to the disciplinary authority for imposing double penalty for the same charge. If this order is to be interpreted to mean that penalty of removal from service has been up- held by the appellate authority and on some compassionate ground the petitioner had been directed to be appointed afresh, then the petitioner could not have been visited with another penalty of stoppage of three increments.
(7) Counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that as the said order has become final it should be given its literal meaning and even though the order is beyond the powers of the disciplinary authority the same should be implemented as it is. She has argued that the order clearly contemplates fresh appointment of the petitioner so there is no question of the petitioner being reinstated to his previous post, I do not find any merit in this contention. As already mentioned by me above, the whole order has to be read and every part of the order is to be given meaning and has to be harmoniously construed in the light of the rules governing the parties. As there is no rule by which the petitioner could have been removed from service and freshly appointed and he be visited penalty of stoppage of three increments, the order must be given its meaning in consonance with the relevant rules. The petitioner has to be reinstated to his previous post and he has to be given penalty of stoppage of three increments and the previous period since he stood removed from service is to be treated as break in service.
(8) So in view of the above discussions I hold that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated to the post which he was holding at the time he was removed from service and has to be given salary which he was getting at that time and his three increments have to be withdrawn from the date of the order onwards and he has not to be given benefit for his previous service for any purpose. The petitioner is not entitled to challenge the said order by filing any appeal against that order because if he wanted to challenge that order he could have done so in the previous case. In the previous case the prayer made by the petitioner was that the said order should be implemented. So it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to urge that he has the right to challenge that order by any mode now.
(9) I hence partly allow the writ petition and direct that the petitioner be deemed to have been reinstated with effect from 18th January, 1971 and his three increments are to be withheld from that date onwards and he was not to be given any benefit of previous service. The respondents should comply with the directions within three months. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.