Sharda Singh vs State Of U.P.& Ors

3) The appellant was working as Collection Amin. While in service, he was served with a charge memo, inter-alia alleging, that, instead of depositing the amount by himself, he got it deposited through Peon. After holding an enquiry, he was visited with a minor penalty. Adverse entry in his confidential records by District Magistrte, 1 Sitapur vide his order dated 31.10.2003. In the same order, it was informed to the appellant that payment of back wages during the period of suspension will be determined separately. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the appellant had preferred appeal before the appellate authority as provided in the Rules. The appellate authority vide his order dated 04.04.2005 has dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

724). That order passed by the appellate authority is set aside by the High Court. Therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is, that the order passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur dated 31.10.2003 and the order passed on 13.09.2004 is set aside by the High Court. In our view, having set aside the order dated 04.04.2005, there is no reason for the Court to decline to set aside the order passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur dated 31.10.2003 and the order dated 13.09.2004. When an appeal is filed before the appellate authority against an order passed by the District Magistrate, the impugned order merges in the order passed by the appellate authority, when the appeal is disposed of on merits. When that order of the appellate authority is set aside, the natural consequence is that the orders passed by the District Magistrate also becomes inconsequential. Therefore, the High Court was not right in refusing to set aside the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 31.10.2003 and the order dated 13.09.2004. At this stage, we must observe that the High Court while deciding the writ petition has given importance only to the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 31.10.2003 and there is no discussion whatsoever with regard to the claim made by 4 the appellant for arrears of salary for the period when he was kept out of service. Therefore, it may not be proper to held, the Court has also set aside the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 13.09.2004.

10) In the aforesaid circumstances, we are unable to agree wit h the cryptic order passed by the High Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, what should have been done by the High Court was to decide the issue with reference to the rules/regulations, which governs the parties or direct the respondents to reconsider the 6 issue of payment of salary during the period of suspension till the order dated 31.10.2003, in accordance with law and also in accordance with the provision of Financial Handbook which governs the parties.

11) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned order passed by the High Court in declining to set aside the order passed by the District Magistrate, Sitapur dated 31.10.2003 is set aside. In so far as the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 13.09.2004 which has culminated in the order passed by the appellate authority is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Sitapur to consider the claim of the appellant for payment of back wages/salary for the period 22.10.1998 to 31.10.2003 in accordance with law and also the rules/regulations which governs the parties to the lis. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.