Upon reinstatement of a compulsorily retired employee following the setting aside of a punishment, the competent authority cannot arbitrarily treat the intervening period as 'dies-non' but must instead invoke the provisions of FR54 (Para 1343) to adjust the absence against available leave of any kind.

O R D E R

Per: Hon’ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Member (A):

1. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,for the following reliefs: -

“(a) An order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.6.16 which is Annexure "A-8" to this application treating the period compulsory retirement (11.12.08) from the date of till the date of re-instatement (04.07.13) in service as dies non and further directing the responds to regularize the said period i.e. 11.12.08 to 04.07.13 by granting leave and pay the applicant admissible salaries and allowances in conformity with the provision of Rule 504(3) of Railway Establishment Code Vol(1) and to pay the applicant all arrears of salaries and allowances;

(b) Issuance of any other order or orders and/or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

1. Facts narrated by the applicant are as follows:-

2.1 While the applicant was working as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Supervisor, on 15.5.2007 a charge sheet was issued against the applicant. The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of the enquiry submitted his finding on 7.1.2008. The Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with the finding of Enquiry Officer re-opened the enquiry and on 11.7.08 submitted the finding declaring the charges as proved. The Disciplinary Authority passed Final Order on 11.12.08 imposing punishment of removal from service. The applicant preferred an appeal on 21.1.09 before Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority passed order on 15.9.09 imposing penalty in the nature of compulsory retirement with effect from the date of removal with 80% pensionary benefits. Challenging the Final Order and Appellate Order the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 301 of 2010. The said Original Application was allowed by this Tribunal by order dated 30.11.12 by quashing and setting aside the Final Order and Appellate Order. The respondents approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P.C.T. No.242 of 2013. Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition on 26.6.13 by directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service. On 4.7.2013 the applicant was reinstated in service but the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement was treated as dies non. As per the Liberty given to the respondents the applicant was punished with reduction of pay for a period of 5 years reduced on appeal to 2 years 6 months but the order of dies non remained. Challenging such order the applicant filed Original Application No.350/00339/2014 which was allowed with the liberty to the Respondents to pass an appropriate order after conclusion of enquiry in accordance with law. However, the period from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of reinstatement in service was treated as dies non by order impugned with O.A.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant states that the Disciplinary Authority who was directed to consider the representation submitted by the applicant against the finding of the Enquiry Officer formed bias and imposed punishment treating the period from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of reinstatement as dies non. Question of deciding the period from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of reinstatement depends upon the outcome of the consideration of the representation submitted by applicant but here the Disciplinary Authority at the time of reinstatement formed the conclusive opinion that the applicant should be punished even before taking decision with regard to quantum of punishment. Disciplinary Authority cannot have any arbitrary power to impose punishment in passing order of reinstatement i