UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAKASAN K N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties at length.

(2.) The respondent was appointed under the appellant-Union of India as Junior Engineer in the Department of Lighthouses and Lightships, Mumbai on 10/02/1983. By an order dated 01/03/1993, he was charge-sheeted with article (1) and (2) of the charge. The enquiry officer found that both the charges (1) and (2) were proved against the respondent. His services was terminated on 23/08/1993 preceded by an enquiry. In the interregnum, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority remanded his case to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order. Thereafter on 10/02/1994, the disciplinary authority passed a fresh order terminating the service of the respondent. The appeal was dismissed on 24/08/1994. Aggrieved thereby, he filed original petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay. By an order dated 7/12/2000, the tribunal again remanded the case to the appellate authority to pass an order supported by reasons. Thereafter, a final order was passed on 26/03/2001 by the appellate authority reinstating the respondent. While reinstating the respondent, the appellate authority directed that the period from 10/02/1994 to 26/04/2001 shall not be treated as on duty. The appellate authority further directed that the respondent will be paid the pay and allowances equal to subsistence allowance and other allowance admissible under Fundamental Rule 53, for period of his absence from duty from 10/02/1994 till he takes over the charge, including the period of suspension, preceding his removal and that this period will be treated as not on duty. The pay and allowances to be paid to the respondent will further be subject to other conditions as laid down under Fundamental Rule 54(in short 'F.R. 54'). By the aforesaid order, the respondent was also given liberty to submit a representation before the competent authority.

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent joined the service on 27/04/2001. He also filed a representation as directed which was rejected by the authority on 08/06/2001. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred another O.A. before the tribunal. The tribunal, after hearing the parties, allowed the application and directed the appellant to treat the period of absence from 10/02/1994 to 26/04/2001 as on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances and directed the appellant to issue orders accordingly. The appellants writ petition ended without any result. Hence this appeal by special leave.