ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following relief:

“(i) To call for the records relating to (1) Order No.CPB/227/5/89/25/CR770/A8, dated 11.01.2007, nd passed by the 2 respondent (II) Order No. CPB/227/5/8/25/CR 770, dated 24.12.2007, passed nd by the 2 respondent and (III) Order No.CPB/227/5/89/25/CR 770/60, dated 14.06.2014 nd passed by the 2 respondent and quash the same and (ii) To direct the respondents to restore the applicant to the post of Mason Garde- II with effect from 29.05.1992, with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances;

(iii) To direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension between 01.06.1992 to 29.04.2001, as duty with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances;

(iv) To direct the respondents to treat the period form 30.04.2001, to the date of joining service i.e., 09.02.2007, as duty with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances;

(v) To award cost, and pass such further and other order as may be deemed and proper and thus render justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows: The applicant joined service as a Khalasi in the Railways on 19.03.1980. He was issued with a Charge Memo, dated 15.11.1989, for having attempted to punch out 107 card for petty remuneration, illegally, even though he was not booked for the night shift, in violation of the Railway Services (Conduct) Rules. He denied the charges. Despite his objections and based on the Inquiry Report, he was removed from service by an order, dated 29.05.1992. Following this, the applicant pursued various legal avenues. He appealed against his removal, submitted representations to higher authorities, and filed multiple petitions before Tribunals and Courts. Initially, the Railway Rates Tribunal directed a fresh inquiry, contesting the earlier procedure's fairness. Subsequent legal battles included petitions to set aside orders, appeals for reinstatement, and challenges to the penalties imposed. Over the years, the applicant's case saw several twists and turns through administrative reviews and judicial decisions. At one point, the penalty of removal was modified to compulsory retirement. Despite these adjustments, further efforts to restore his original job position and benefits faced setbacks, including dismissals of his appeals and petitions. Now, the applicant challenged a decision, dated 14.06.2014, by the Revisional Authority, which upheld certain penalties and dismissed his claims for treating the period of his absence from 01.06.1992 to 29.04.2001 as well as the period from 30.04.2001 to

08.02.2007 as period spent on duty.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that this Tribunal by its order, dated 05.07.2004, in OA No.15/2004, quashed the impugned orders therein and directed the respondents to impose any penalty order other than dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement. In violation of nd the Tribunal's order. the 2 respondent by order, dated 17.12.2005, confirmed the penalty of removal from service of the applicant imposed by st the Disciplinary Authority. Subsequently the 1 respondent by order, dated 11.01.2007, modified the penalty order as reduction to lower post. But the period from 30.04.2001 to 09.02.2007 has been treated as not duty. FR 54A stipulates that where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a court of law and such Government Servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry the period of absence from duty shall be regularized. In the present case the applicant was reinstated in service consequent to the order of this Tribunal, dated 05.07.2004 Hence, she urged that the period of absence from duty from 30.04.2001 to 09.02.2007 should be treated as duty.

st

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the action of the 1 respondent in treating the period of susp