ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

This Original Petition arises out of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench dated 12.7.2015 in O.A.No.810/2013. The petitioner, an ex-service man, who joined Southern Railways on 18.7.1990 as Permanent Way Inspector Grade III at Palakkad Division has filed the said O.A. seeking for an order to set aside Annexures A16, A18 and A20 as arbitrary and illegal. He has also sought for an order directing the respondents to submit a report with regard to the action taken on his complaint with respect to the alleged attempt of sabotage and a declaration that he is entitled to all service benefits that a Railway employee is entitled at the time of superannuation; and a declaration that he is entitled to merge his Army service with the service he had in the Railways so as to make him eligible for full pension.

2. The O.A. was filed along with M.A.No.910/2013, an application seeking condonation of delay of 2216 days in preferring the O.A. before the Tribunal.

3. The respondents filed Ext.P3 reply statement opposing the miscellaneous application for condonation of delay. They have also filed Ext.P4 reply statement opposing the reliefs sought for in the O.A.

4. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal by Ext.P5 order dated 12.7.2016 dismissed the O.A. on merits and on the ground of limitation as well.

5. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal, the petitioner/applicant is before this Court in this O.A.

6. We heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant and also the learned Standing Counsel for Southern Railway representing the respondents.

7. Going by the pleadings and materials on record, the petitioner, who is an ex-service man, joined Southern Railway on 18.7.1990 as Permanent Way Inspector Grade III at Palakkad Division. On 28.7.1996, while working at Mannannur Yard the petitioner reported to the Divisional Railway Manager (Works), Palakkad that 7 trains including 4 express trains were sent without issuing caution orders through his caution spot. According to the petitioner, since the above said act is one touching the safety of the passengers and it amounts to a case of sabotage, the superior authorities ought to have enquired into it. Subsequent to the said complaint, he was transferred to Trivandrum Division and no enquiry whatsoever was conducted on the reported sabotage. Since the petitioner was unable to move to Trivandrum Division for personal reasons, he submitted resignation, which was not accepted by the authorities concerned. Thereafter, he joined duty at Trivandrum Division.

8. According to the petitioner, on account of ill-treatment from superiors as well as co-workers, he was forced to go on leave. Later, he submitted Annexure A1 application dated 11.7.2000 seeking extension of leave, which was followed by Annexure A2 application dated 2.8.2000, citing reasons which compelled him from not rejoining duty. The leave sought for in Annexues A1 and A2 was not sanctioned. Resultantly, for unauthorised absence, the petitioner was served with Annexure A3 memo of charges dated 8.1.2001, to which he submitted Annexure A4 reply dated 8.2.2001. After conducting an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted Annexure A5 report dated 28.6.2001.

9. On receipt of a copy of Annexure A5 enquiry report, the petitioner submitted Annexure A6 reply dated 7.7.2001. After considering Annexure A6 reply, the 3rd respondent issued Annexure A7 penalty advice dated 23.8.2001, by which the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of reduction of pay scale by three stages for a period of one year (non-recurring) with effect from 1.9.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed that his pay of Rs.5900 in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 is reduced to Rs.5450 (by three stages) for a period of one year (non-recurring) with effect from 1.9.2001. On receipt of Annexure A7 penalty advice, the petitioner submitted Annexure A8 appeal dated 12.9.2001 befor