Reinstatement after misconduct does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages; absence treated as 'dies non' affects wage claims.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

By means of present O.A., the applicant has sought the following reliefs:-

“(A) That the order dated 18-04-2005 passed by Senior Divisional Engineer (I), North Central Railway, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (Annexure A-1 to the compilation No.I) and order dated Nil passed by General Manager, North Central Railway, Head Quarter Office, Allahabad received on 14-6-2011 alongwith covering letter dated 14-6-2011 of Sr. Section Engineer, North Central Railway, Allahabad (Annexure A-2 to the Compilation No.1) may be declared illegal and same be quashed

(B) That the respondents be directed to provide all the benefits of service including arrears of salary and other pecuniary benefits for the period during which he was kept out of employment i.e. with effect from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement in service and further they be directed to provide suitable interest which maybe fixed by this hon'ble Tribunal till date of actual payment of salary and other pecuniary benefits.

C) That the respondents be directed to pay compensation to applicant.

D) That any other and further relief which this hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the applicant.

E) Cost of proceeding be awarded to the applicant”.

2. During the pendency of this OA, the original applicant Shri Triloki Nath Mishra passed away and thereafter his widow and son have been substituted in his place by way of a substitution application.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the original applicant was appointed as a Permanent Gangman in the Railways with effect from 01.04.1987. While serving as Permanent Way Inspector (Special) at Shikohabad, he was served with a chargesheet dated 04.01.1997, containing allegations which he denied. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, and ex-parte inquiry was conducted. Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the applicant submitted his reply; however, the Disciplinary Authority, without proper consideration of his submission, imposed the punishment of removal from service. His appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.01.1998. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the original applicant filed OA No. 794/1998 before this Tribunal, which was partly allowed on 29.08.2003. The Tribunal quashed the orders dated 15.01.1997 and 05.05.1998, directing the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order, confined only to the quantum of punishment. Despite the Tribunal’s direction, the Disciplinary Authority again passed an order of removal from service on 28.11.2003. The original applicant preferred an appeal, and the Appellate Authority, after hearing him, set aside the removal order and imposed a lesser penalty of reduction to the lowest stage of the pay scale for one year vide order dated 08.04.2004. The original applicant was reinstated on 14.04.2004 as a Trackman in Gang No. 19, with his pay fixed at Rs. 2610/-. Subsequently, the original applicant submitted a representation dated 19.04.2004 requesting all consequential service benefits, including arrears of salary from the date of removal till reinstatement. When no action was taken, he filed OA No. 1629/2004, which was disposed of on 18.01.2005 with a direction to the Appellate Authority to consider his claim. The claim was rejected vide order dated 18.04.2005, prompting the original applicant to file OA No. 1638/2006. This OA was disposed of on 09.12.2010 with a direction to the General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad to take a judicious decision regarding back wages, keeping in view applicable legal principles. However, the General Manager again rejected the claim by order dated 14.06.2011. Feeling aggrieved, original applicant has filed the present original application.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit wherein it has been submitted that original applicant was given full opportunity to participate in the inquiry but he failed to avail the sa