The main legal point established is that reinstatement with continuity of service is the norm in cases of wrongful termination of service, and the petitioner should be entitled to increments and benefits under the ACP Scheme upon reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 17th November, 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ("CAT") dismissing the Petitioner's OA No.1271/2012. The petition also challenges the order dated 4th September, 2017 passed by the CAT, dismissing the Petitioner's Review Application being RA No. 39/2016, against the above order dated 17th November, 2015 in his OA.

2. The background facts are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with the Respondent/Delhi Transport Corporation ("DTC") in 1994. On 13th December, 1986, the Petitioner submitted an application to DTC requesting for leave, citing medical grounds, with effect from 15th December, 1986. The DTC sanctioned leave to him till 24th December, 1986. However, on account of his persisting illness, the Petitioner could not join back on the aforesaid date. He first submitted an application for extension of leave till 31st December, 1986; a second time, for extension till 15th February, 1987; and a third time, for extension till 7th May, 1987. Each of these applications was accompanied by medical certificates attesting to his continued ill health.

3. The DTC sanctioned and regularized leave to the Petitioner till 6th May, 1987. By an order dated 6th May, 1987, however, the Petitioner was deemed to have resigned from service. The Petitioner raised an industrial dispute against the aforesaid order of deemed resignation, challenging the action of DTC as not adhering with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act").

4. Upon being referred to the Industrial Tribunal ("Tribunal"), the Tribunal first considered the question of whether the above order dated 6th May, 1987 amounted to retrenching the Petitioner under Section 2 (oo) of the ID Act or terminating his services. The Tribunal found that since in the domestic enquiry conducted prior to ordering his deemed resignation, the Petitioner had not been afforded a "reasonable and fair opportunity to put forth his case"; the DTC had violated principles of natural justice. It was of the view that the Petitioner's deemed resignation therefore amounted to his retrenchment. Admittedly, DTC had not complied with the procedure under Section 25-F of the ID Act before retrenching the Petitioner. The Tribunal by its award dated 23rd February, 1998, saw it fit to order the Petitioner's reinstatement into service with full back wages.

5. The DTC challenged the Tribunal's Award by way of W.P.(C) 5763/1998 before this Court. The Court by an interim order dated 13th January, 1999 in the said petition stayed the operation of the impugned Award of the Tribunal. By another impugned order dated 2nd August, 2000, the Petitioner's application under Section 17-B of the ID Act for payment of full wages and maintenance allowance till the disposal of the petition, came to be allowed.

6. Counsel for the DTC contended inter alia before the learned Single Judge that sufficient opportunity had been given to the Petitioner herein to present his case before the order of deemed resignation was passed under Clause 14 (10) (c) of the DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952.

7. Counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, argued that even though Show Cause Notices ("SCNs") were issued to the Petitioner before the order of deemed resignation was passed, the SCNs merely paid "lip service" to the principles of natural justice, as the Petitioner had been unable to re-join service at that point. Instead, he should have been afforded an opportunity to respond to the SCNs once he joined duty. Counsel for the Petitioner also tried to make out the case that the order dated 6th May, 1987 did not even so much as mention the applications for sanction of leave submitted by the Petitioner and other communication in this regard in considering whether there were sufficient reasons for the Petitioner's absence.

8. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 17th May, 2010,