1. The prayer in the writ petition is for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from deducting the wages for one day, namely, 20 February, 1981, from the salary of the petitioner. The deduction was proposed as per the office order of the second respondent, dated 20 February, 1981, which runs as follows:
“You are hereby reminded that your contract of service and the nature of your duties enjoin upon you to do a full day's work and complete each day's normal work. You have today also refused to attend the clearing house at local State Bank of India which is part of your day's routine work allotted to you as per office order No. 7/80, dated 8 October, 1980. Therefore, you are put on notice that you are in breach of contract of service and as a result you will not be entitled to days pay and allowances. We are enforcing the principle of no work, no pay and as such no pay and allowance will be paid to you for this day. Since you have refused to attend today's clearing house work at local State Bank of India no further work is expected from you for the rest of the day. This is without prejudice to the management right to take such disciplinary action against you as may be warranted. Please note.”
The reason for the proposed deduction of the wages for the day 20 February, 1981, was that the petitioner refused to attend the clearing house at local State Bank of India, which was stated to be part of the petitioner's routine work allotted to him as per office order No. 7/80, dated 8 October, 1980. The petitioner was not proceeded with by way of disciplinary action for disobedience of the office order No. 7/80, dated 8 October, 1980. It is not a case of the petitioner totally abstaining from duty on 20 February, 1981. He did report for duty on that day. But since he would not obey the office order No. 7/80, dated 8 October, 1980, he was denied further work for the rest of the day. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, there is no averment that the petitioner did not do any work at all on 20 February, 1981. On the other hand, the averments in the counter-affidavit indicate that the petitioner performed part of his duties. In the said circumstances, it will not be proper to invoke the principle “no work-no pay” and straightway deny the petitioner the wages for 20 February, 1981. As already noted, the respondents have not resorted to any disciplinary action for disobedience of the earlier office order, by the petitioner. In the said circumstance, I have to countenance the prayer in the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. However, if there had been in fact disobedience of the office order No. 7/80, dated 8 October, 1980, and on that ground the respondents want to proceed against the petitioner in disciplinary action, they are at liberty to do so.