ARVIND BHAURAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioner being a Shunter in railways has impugned the order partly of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dtd. 23/9/2013 passed in Original Application No.202 of 2008 to the extent of not granting him back-wages by applying the doctrine of 'no work no pay'.

(3.) The facts are not disputed. The petitioner was booked for duty at Mudkhed Station. However, before he reached there, another employee for discharging the same duty was available. Therefore, he left the station signing the register. On these allegations, the petitioner was suspended. The inquiry was initiated against him. The disciplinary authority had terminated him from services. The petitioner had impugned the said order. The Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Hyderabad, he allowed his appeal partly and converted his removal to compulsory retirement. He then preferred the revision before the Divisional Railway Manager (DRM). He also rejected it. Lastly, he filed the original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the order of his compulsory retirement has been quashed and set aside. However, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal find it appropriate to apply the doctrine of 'no work no pay' and denied the back-wages.