BARUN KUMAR NEOGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 27.5.2013 in O.A. No. 228 of 2011(R), in and by which the original application preferred by the applicant has been dismissed, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed on 16.9.1987 as Shed Khalasi. Subsequently, in the year 1997 he was transferred to Chakradharpur. Division as Diesel Assistant and was posted as Loco DPS. On 4.1.1999 he was served a call book and he reported for duty at about 18.15 hrs. in intoxicated condition. Accordingly, a charge memo was served upon the petitioner and after the departmental enquiry, penalty of removal from service was passed on 23rd of June, 1999. The petitioner submitted an appeal dated 6.12.1999 which was also rejected by the order dated 29.2.2000. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 138 of 2001 which was disposed of by order dated 28.4.2004 on the ground that though there was no charge of absenteeism framed against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority has taken note of said fact and passed the order of removal from service. It was ordered by the learned Tribunal that the disciplinary authority may, from the stage the impugned order was passed, "pick up the loose threads and pass a fresh order in accordance with law". The disciplinary authority considered the matter afresh and taking note of the allegations and imputations of misconduct, again passed the order of "removal from service without any compassionate allowance". Thereafter, the petitioner approached the appellate authority who, vide order dated 3.10.2008, took a lenient view and converted the order of "removal from service" into an order of "compulsory retirement from service with full benefits as admissible". Still dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 228 of 2011(R) seeking benefit of back wages between the period 23rd of June, 1999 and 29th of March, 2004 and also the benefit of the order of compulsory retirement to be made effective from 29th October, 2004. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the original application filed by the petitioner and in these facts the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

(3.) Mr. S.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that once the order of removal from service has been quashed by order dated 29.4.2004, the petitioner should have been reinstated in service with effect from 23rd of June, 1999 and since the petitioner was not permitted to join duty, he would be entitled for back wages between the period 23rd of June, 1999 and 28th of April, 2004. It is further submitted that in compliance of order passed by the learned Tribunal since the order of removal from service has been converted into an order of compulsory retirement, the said order would have been given effect from 28th of April, 2004 and not from 23rd of June, 1999.