M.N. Venkatachaliah, CJI and S. Mohan, J.
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. We do consider the contentions of Shri K. Lahiri, learned Senior Counsel, against the correctness of the order of the Tribunal eminently arguable. It is true that the Tribunal's view may not have correctly appreciated the nature of the termination and the effect its order would have on the discipline of the police force. But, subsequent to the order of the Tribunal, the authorities have not only reinstated the respondent back in service - which action could be explained as consistent with the directions of the Tribunal - but have also subsequently by a further order dated 18.2.1991, confirmed the respondent in service with effect from 1.2.1986. The latter action on the part of the authorities cannot be said to have been taken under the compulsions of the Tribunal's order.
3. In view of these subsequent developments, we do not think it is proper for us to disturb and set aside the reinstatement. Indeed this prayer has been rendered difficult to be granted by the actions of the authorities themselves.
4. However, we think that the direction of the Tribunal that half of the back salary be paid, is not justified. Public money is not to be spent as a premium for such deviant conduct particularly of the members of a disciplined force. We set aside that part of the order of the Tribunal and direct that no back salary whatever shall be payable to the respondent till the date of reinstatement, notwithstanding the retrospective confirmation. Respondent says that no back salary has been paid to him. If it is paid it shall be recovered.
5. With these observations and directions, the petition for special leave is disposed of.