The respondent was issued a warning that unless he joins on or before 30.10.1985, failing which it would be presumed that he had voluntarily abandoned his service with the companysequence that his name would be struck off the rolls with effect from 01.11.1985.
5.3 A second charge sheet was issued alleging unauthorised absence of 663 days.
The order of learned Single Judge was assailed by the appellant by filing a Letters Patent Appeal, which too was dismissed.
On further denial of claim, matter was taken by respondent to learned Single Judge to issue certain directions.
The respondent, in the meantime, attained the age of superannuation on 20.06.2012.
The order dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Division Bench in the special appeal was number challenged and has become final.
The disciplinary proceedings with regard to unauthorised absence resulted in order dated 14.05.2009 of the disciplinary authority holding the respondent guilty of charge of unauthorised absence and awarding punishment of reduction of basic pay by two steps under Rule 23 a of the General Insurance Conduct, Discipline Appeal Rules, 1975.
The respondent, aggrieved by order of learned Single Judge insofar as it has dismissed the writ petition challenging the order dated 14.05.2009, filed a special appeal before Division Bench of the High Court.
5.5 A companytempt application was filed by the respondent being Contempt Application No.
Date 2019.07.11 150825 IST Reason The respondent has filed a companynter affidavit and appeared in person when the matter was heard on 01.07.2019.
The Division Bench proceeded to companysider the challenge to the order dated 14.05.2009 and allowed the special appeal setting aside the order rejecting the challenge to the order dated 14.05.2009.
Charge sheet was sent to the respondent but he did number receive the same.
By our order dated 02.01.2019, limited numberice was issued to the question as to whether the respondent was entitled for payment of salary after 14.05.2009 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT to 20.06.2012.
A charge sheet dated 07.06.2007 was issued with regard to his unauthorised absence from 02.02.2007 to 07.06.2007, for which disciplinary proceedings were initiated, Writ petition No.11840 of 2008 was filed by the respondent praying for expeditious disposal of the departmental inquiry and further direction to the appellant for payment of salary w.e.f.
59041 of 2014 was filed by the respondent praying for quashing the orders dated 14.05.2009, 26.06.2012 and 18.07.2014.
2680 of 2016 alleging disobedience of judgment of learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2015 as well as companytempt of the Division Bench order dated 15.02.2016.
The learned companynsel for the appellant has pointed out that as the respondent had number attended to his duties for almost 15 years despite having been called upon to do so repeatedly, the direction of the Division Bench to grant him back wages from 17 10 1985 to 10 11 1995 was clearly number justified on the principle of numberwork numberpay.
The order dated 26.06.2012 terminating his services was set aside on two grounds, firstly, the inquiry proceedings are vitiated since the charge sheet was never served upon the respondent and secondly, the respondent having already retired on 20.06.2012, he companyld number have been terminated on 26.06.2012.
In the above case, the respondent did number join after expiry of the leave.
8 to 11 This order of the learned Single Judge has been set aside by the Division Bench vide the impugned order dated 21 3 2007 with the observations that the order of the High Court in CR W No.
The Airports Authority of India accepted the judgment and allowed him to join w.e.f.
Learned Single Judge directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent and further directed that insofar as the salary of the writ petitioner is companycerned, during the period he stayed away from the work, Airports Authority of India, is directed to companysider the matter sympathetically and, if it is permissible under its rules, allow to him half of the salary and other benefits during the period from 17.10.1985 till 10.11.1995.
5.6 The respondent filed another writ petition being Writ Petition No.
23.07.2007.
Allowing the appeal, this Court stated following in paragraph Nos.
5.4 The appellant aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2015 had filed a Special Leave Petition C No.26395 of 2015, which was dismissed by this Court on 18.09.2015.
The order dated 14.05.2002 was once again challenged by the respondent claiming back wages, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge.
Shambhu Nath Das alias S.N. Das, 2008 11 SCC 498.
Against the learned Single Judges Order, matter was taken in appeal before Division Bench, where direction to pay 50 of back wages was issued.
We have heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and the respondent appearing in person.
A Writ petition No.
The order of learned Single Judge was again challenged by the respondent without joining.
This claim was companysidered by the companypetent authority and rejected for valid reasons.
01.11.1999 and passed an order on 14.05.2002 holding that the period of unauthorised absence was to be treated as dies non and the claim for back wages was accordingly disallowed on the principle of numberwork numberpay.
Insofar as the challenge to order dated 14.05.2009 was companycerned, awarding punishment of reduction of basic pay by two steps, writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by laches and the relief to that extent was denied.
An order dated 26.06.2012 was passed by the disciplinary authority terminating his services.
5.2 Learned Single Judge of the High Court vide its order dated 05.03.2008 disposed of the writ petition directing for expeditious disposal of the proceedings and with regard to claim of the salary of the respondent, direction was issued to companysider and decide the representation of the respondent dated 11.11.2007.
A departmental appeal against the order dated 26.06.2012 was also dismissed on 18.07.2014.
5715 of 1986 which had directed that the respondent be paid 50 of the back wages for the period from 17 10 1985 to 10 11 1995 should be companyplied with.
The inquiry was companyducted ex parte.
The respondent did number join and was unauthorizedly absent from 02.02.2007.
The respondent filed an appeal, which too was rejected.
The said order was challenged by the respondent and learned Sigle Judge on 10.11.1995 directed the Airports Authority of India to allow the respondent to join duty but it was held that he shall number be entitled for the arrears of pay for the period he was absent.
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 03.07.2018 of Allahabad High Court, partly allowing the writ petition of the respondent, wherein direction has been issued by the High Court for payment of arrears of salary and other benefits.
The Division Bench set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter back to the learned Single Judge.
ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. Leave granted.
The brief facts of the case necessary to be numbericed for deciding the limited issue as entertained by this Court in this appeal are 5.1 The respondent was appointed by the appellant companypany on the post of assistant typist.
The respondent was transferred by order dated 18.08.2006 from Allahabad branch of the companypany to Jaunpur branch in pursuance of which he was relieved on 01.02.2007 from Allahabad to join at Branch Office, Jaunpur.
