Facts: Respondent No. 5 was a confirmed Assistant Teacher at the Petitioner’s college. In 2015, the Management suspended her and initiated a departmental enquiry. Following a report from an Enquiry Committee, which was later found to be defective and biased, her services were terminated in October 2017. The School Tribunal subsequently quashed the termination, finding the charges unproven and the enquiry farcical. The Tribunal directed the Management to reinstate the teacher with continuity of service and full back wages. The Management reinstated her in a sister institution but sought a direction from the High Court that the State Government should be liable for the back wages, arguing that no other teacher was appointed in her place and the school receives 100% salary grants.
Procedural Posture: The Petitioners (Management) filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the State Government to pay the back wages as per the School Tribunal’s order.
Issue: Whether the liability to pay back wages and subsistence allowance following a wrongful termination rests with the Management (Employer) or the State Government (Grant-paying authority) when the enquiry and termination were found to be illegal and biased?
Holding: The liability rests solely with the Management.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the entire disciplinary action, including the defective enquiry and unsustainable termination, was the "handiwork" of the Management. Citing "Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya", the Court held that a wrongdoer employer should not be relieved of the burden of its wrongdoings by shifting the financial liability to the State. The State had no role in the dismissal or the victimization of the employee. Furthermore, relying on the Full Bench decision in "Awdesh Narayan K. Singh v. Adarsh Vidya Mandir Trust", the Court clarified that if suspension is effected without prior permission or is found unjustified, the Management must bear the costs. The mere fact that the State did not have to pay a substitute teacher does not justify saddling the public exchequer with the cost of the Management’s unfair acts.