JUDGMENT :

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA) being OA 350 of 2018. By the said order the learned Tribunal refused the petitioner’s prayer for back wages.

2. The petitioner’s case is that he was appointed in a Group-‘D’ post against ex-serviceman quota vacancy in the year 1985. Subsequent thereto, a charge sheet was issued against him on 19.12.1988 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 1968 Rules). The said charge sheet was withdrawn on 16.02.1990 and a fresh charge sheet was issued on 13.09.1990. On the basis of the same, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer (in short, EO) submitted a report exonerating him from the charges. However, a re-enquiry was ordered thereafter under Rule 10 of the 1968 Rules. In the said enquiry, the EO arrived at a finding that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct alleged. Accepting the said report, the disciplinary authority (in short, DA) imposed a penalty of dismissal on 02.08.1994. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred a statutory appeal on 16.09.1994. During the pendency of the same, he approached the learned Tribunal challenging inter alia the order of punishment. The learned Tribunal allowed the said application and aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred a writ petition being WPCT 225 of 1999 which was disposed of by an order dated 11.08.1999 remanding the OA for a fresh hearing. On remand, the learned Tribunal dismissed the OA by an order dated 01.10.2002. Challenging the same, the petitioner again preferred a writ petition being WPCT 361 of 2003 which was disposed of by an order dated 18.12.2012 directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, forthwith. As regards entitlement of the petitioner towards back wages, the Hon’ble Court was of the opinion that the said issue needs to be considered by the Tribunal as there was no material before the Court to decide the same. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Court remanded the OA to the learned Tribunal only for the limited purpose of ascertaining on affidavits as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the back wages and other consequential benefits from 02.08.1994 till his reinstatement. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner was reinstated in service with continuity vide memo dated 30.04.2013 and 07.05.2013. Subsequent thereto, the learned Tribunal disposed of the OA by an order dated 27.11.2015 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim towards back wages and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner, Karnatak Vs. C. Muddaiah, reported in (2007) 2 SCC (LS) 748. Pursuant to such direction, the respondent no. 3 passed an order on 15.06.2018 refusing the petitioner’s prayer for back wages. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred OA 350 of 2018 and the order passed in the same has been impugned in the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was exonerated of the charges alleged against him in the charge sheet dated 13.09.1990. The order of re-enquiry passed thereafter by the railway authorities was held to be untenable in the writ petition being WPCT 361 of 2003. The order dated 18.12.2012 passed in WPCT 361 of 2003 was admittedly not challenged by the respondents and as such the same had attained finality. In view thereof, the order of dismissal from service on the rudiments of such re-enquiry passed on 02.08.1994 was an order of wrongful termination of service and in view thereof, the respondents are under an obligation to pay the back wages of the petitioner from the date of dismissal, i.e., 02.08.1994 till his reinstatement on 18.03.2013. In support of such contention reliance has been placed u