BISWAPATI ROY Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by Shri Biswapati Roy against the Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Eastern Railway and five others.

(2.) The applicant joined as an Engine Cleaner under the Eastern Railway in 1952 and by subsequent promotions he got the post of Store Issuer. By an order issued on 25.9.78 he was placed under suspension on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding against him was under contemplation. On 12.11.78 a charge -sheet was issued against him on the allegation that he had failed to maintain proper tally sheets for tallying materials resulting in financial loss to Railway. An enquiry proceeding was started against him and the Enquiry Officer after examining the materials on record exonerated him from the charges. The Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer imposed a penalty of removal from service on the applicant with effect from 31.8.81. The applicant challenged that order by a writ application filed in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta which was transferred to this Tribunal. On 10.7.86 the writ application was disposed of by this Tribunal and in its judgment the Tribunal allowed the application and revoked the under of suspension and set aside the imposition of penalty along with the departmental appellate order. The applicant was directed to the reinstated in service within 15 days from the date of the order. The respondents were, however, given the liberty to hold a fresh enquiry from the initial stage. Pursuant to the said judgment the applicant was reinstated in his service on 28.7.86. On 29.7.86, i.e., the date following his reinstatement in service another suspension order was passed against him. The applicant states that even after so long a period the respondents have not yet proceeded against him in the departmental enquiry. It is his case that as he has been exonerated from the charges and reinstated in service he should get his normal increments and other benefits as per rules. The applicant contends that in this way he cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period. In filing the application the applicant has prayed for setting aside the fresh order of suspension, for issuing a direction upon the respondents so that they may not proceed against him in the departmental enquiry and for passing an order so that they may pay his full pay and allowances for the entire period

(3.) The application has been contested by the respondents. The facts of the case as mentioned in the application are more or less admitted by the respondents. It is stated in the reply that pursuant to the order of this Tribunal the applicant was reinstated in his service and as the Tribunal had given. the liberty to the administration to hold a fresh enquiry against the applicant from the initial stage and as it had been decided by the administration to do so the applicant was again placed under suspension with effect from 29.7.86. The applicant's earlier period of suspension from 25.9.78 to 30.8.81 was treated as on duty and the period from 31.8.81 to 27.7.86 was treated as on suspension as per the order of the Tribunal. The applicant was granted annual increments upto 31.8.81 but he was not granted any further increment thereafter as he was under suspension. It is contended by the respondents that the enquiry proceeding against the applicant will be started afresh soon.