Dismissed CRPF Safai Karamchari Wins Salary Dispute

The respondent, a Safai Karamchari in CRPF, was dismissed without due process. The appellate authority reinstated the respondent, leading to a dispute over salary entitlement. The Single Judge and Division Bench ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding salary for the absence period. The Supreme Court clarified that authorities can decide on salary payment based on circumstances. Emphasizing adherence to natural justice, the Court upheld the back wages payment, dismissing the Union of India's appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of dismissal from service.
2. Entitlement to salary for the period of absence from duty.
3. Interpretation of Fundamental Rule 54 regarding salary payment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to the order of dismissal from service
The respondent, a Safai Karamchari in CRPF, was dismissed from service without being afforded a reasonable opportunity or served with a show cause notice. The appellate authority set aside the dismissal order due to lack of due process and directed reinstatement. The respondent was reinstated in service following the appellate authority's order. The Union of India challenged the High Court's decision affirming the reinstatement, arguing that the respondent should not be entitled to salary for the period of absence based on Fundamental Rule 54.

Issue 2: Entitlement to salary for the period of absence from duty
The respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking salary for the period of absence from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. The Single Judge held in favor of the respondent, stating that he was entitled to salary for the period he was out of service. The Division Bench also affirmed this decision, leading to the appeal by the Union of India to the Supreme Court.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Fundamental Rule 54 regarding salary payment
The Union of India argued that Fundamental Rule 54 empowers authorities to deny salary to an employee during the period of absence preceding reinstatement. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the provision is enabling and allows authorities to consider relevant facts before deciding on the payment of salary. Citing a precedent, the Court emphasized that the decision on back wages should be based on the final outcome of the proceedings. In this case, the respondent was reinstated without a proper inquiry or show cause notice, indicating a lack of adherence to natural justice principles. The Court found no merit in the Union of India's appeal, dismissing it and upholding the payment of back wages to the respondent for the period of absence.

---