Period of absence due to quashed removal order, where proceedings not concluded post-reinstatement, validly treated as non-qualifying extraordinary leave; judicial review limited, 'no work, no pay' applies absent perversity.

ORDER

1.Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A): By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: -

"a. To quashed the impugned undated order, which is passed in compliance of the order dated 20.10.2023 passed in OA No. 959/2018 Rakesh Kumar Sinha Vs. Union of India and other by which the claim of the petitioner rejected without considering actual fact of the matter, after calling entire record from the respondents.

b. To issue order of direction commanding to the respondents to release the entire service benefits admissible allowances and the pay for the period the petitioner illegally ousted from his services for which applicant is entitled by counting the entire length of service for all practical purpose and to recalculate all services dues including pension, gratuity and to pay the same to the applicant, along with arrears together with 18% interest and to correct the record of respondents treated the removal order was never in existence.

c. To grant compensation in

d. Any other relief which the court deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he was initially appointed as “Guard C” vide appointment letter dated 25.01.1978 (Annexure A-3) and was posted at Bareilly City. sreafter, the applicant was promoted to the post of “Guard (Passenger)” vide Office Order dated 18.03.1988 (Annexure A-4) issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Izzatnagar. While posted at Pilibhit Junction, the applicant was served with an order dated 30.09.1991 (Annexure A-5) (communicated on 18.10.1991), whereby he was removed with immediate effect without conducting any proper enquiry or supplying the enquiry report which he sought on 22.11.1991 (Annexure A-6). Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal dated 30.11.1991 (Annexure A-7) before the DRM. The applicant was dismissed on 14.09.1995 on the ground of limitation. Applicant filed Revision Petition dated 14.10.1996 (Annexure A-11).

2.1 The Revisional Authority, vide orders dated 06.03.1997 and 18.03.1997 [(Annexure A-14 (Colly)], quashed the removal order on the ground of non-supply of the enquiry report and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was reinstated and joined duties on 31.03.1997 (Annexure A-15). The respondents also issued an office order dated 21.05.1997 (Annexure A-16) taking the applicant back on duty. Thereafter, an enquiry report was again supplied vide letter dated 28.04.1998 [Annexure A-17 (Colly)] and the applicant submitted his reply. However, no final order was passed and the proceedings were not taken to their logical conclusion.

2.2 In the year 2006, due to medical issues, fresh disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant for unauthorized | 33 ence, culminating in an order of compulsory retirement w.e-f. 29.01.2007 [Annexure A-18 (Colly)]. The applicant thereafter submitted representations dated 04.03.2007 and 30.06.2009 [Annexure A-19 (Colly)] seeking grant of service benefits for the period during which he was illegally removed from service. As no action was taken, the applicant issued a legal notice dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure A-20) seeking release of retiral and consequential benefits. The applicant earlier approached this Tribunal in O. A. No. 959/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure A-2) directing the respondents to decide the representation by a speaking order. In compliance, the