VINOD KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present O.A. is preferred by the applicant u/s. 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs: - -

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the applicant after being appointed was charge sheeted in the year 1995, alleging for misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 500/ - against money order No. 1906 dated 28.12.1993 as well as Rs. 500/ - against money order No. 3248 dated 23.02.1994. The applicant submitted the reply the he paid the money against the aforesaid money orders to the payee and one of the payee Sri Mahgoo Lodh himself admitted through letter addressed to the Enquiry officer that he has received the amount against the aforesaid money order. The enquiry officer submitted the report holding the applicant guilty of the charges and thereafter an order of removal is passed. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal which was decided by the appellate authority and the appellate authority reduced the punishment and passed an order whereby the applicant shall remain debarred from the departmental examination for the period of two years. Subsequently, the Director, Postal Services directed the respondent No. 4 for sending the records of the case for consideration for enhancement of punishment of the applicant. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 4.3.1998 under Rule 16 of EDAs (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 proposing the enhancement of punishment upon the applicant and after receipt of the reply, the Director, Postal Services again passed an order of removal against which the applicant preferred an appeal on the ground that the respondent No. 3 lacks jurisdiction to review the matter after expiry of the statutory time limit of six months provided under the Rules. The respondents did not consider the appeal preferred by the applicant, then the applicant filed an O.A. No. 155/1998 through which the Tribunal directed the authorities to dispose of the appeal in question within a period of 4 months. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the appellate authority passed an order whereby the impugned order of removal was confirmed. Subsequently, the applicant preferred another O.A. No. 382/2004 and the said O.A. also stands disposed of by means of order dated 4.1.2007 wherein the impugned orders dated 4.3.1998, 13.5.1998 as well as 2.8.2004 are quashed and the Tribunal allowed the O.A. The applicant thereafter, reinstated in service in compliance of the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 382/2004, as such the applicant again made a request by means of a representation to the authorities to pay the arrears of pay to the applicant w.e.f. 13.5.1998 to 31.1.2007. But the same was rejected by the respondents without assigning any reasons by means of impugned order dated 3.9.2007. Not only this, it is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that against the impugned order dated 3.9.2007, the applicant has also preferred an appeal which is also not decided by the authorities and also argued that the impugned order is a non -speaking order, as such the applicant prays that the respondents be directed to pay him arrears of pay since order of removal was quashed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 382/2004.

(3.) THROUGH their second supplementary counter reply, the respondents have categorically indicated that as mentioned in para 16 of the C.A. that applicant has been reinstated in service with all the admissible consequential benefits, as such nothing remains to be paid to the applicant.