G V PERUMAL Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant filed the present O. A. seeking for setting aside the portion of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 12.7.2001 to the effect that the period of suspension is treated as suspension only is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as period spent on duty for all purposes with all attendant and other consequential benefits, and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the pay and allowances for the period of suspension from 3.5.1993 to 17.5.1996 with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and to direct the 1st respondent to recover the same from the concerned authorities responsible for the same and award cost of the application.

(2.) The applicant, while working as Station Master at Ghatnandur Railway Station, was placed under suspension on 3.5.1993, copy of which is produced as Annexure. A-1, by the 3rd respondent and a charge memo dated 18.6.1993 was issued by the 3rd respondent, who is the Disciplinary Authority, containing 13 articles of charge. The order of suspension was subsequently revoked on 17.5.1996 as per the copy of the order, which is Annexure A-2. After conducting the inquiry on holding that the charges are proved against the applicant, the Disciplinary Authority, who is the 3rd respondent, imposed the penalty of reduction of grade from grade Rs. 1600-2660/- to Rs. 1200-2040/- and refixed the pay of the applicant at Rs. 1200/- for a period of three years with loss of seniority and treated the period of suspension of the applicant as 'dies won', vide orders passed on 30.5.1997. The appeal filed by the applicant before the Appellate Authority was dismissed on 19.1.1998 confirming the said punishment. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 186 of 1998. The said O.A. came to be allowed on 12.3.1999 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 19.1.1998 was set aside and the Appellate Authority was directed to consider the appeal and pass a fresh reasoned speaking order after giving personal hearing to the applicant. Subsequently, on 31.7.2000, the Appellate Authority again dismissed the appeal confirming the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant challenged the same by filing O.A. No. 1713 of 2000. The applicant raised among other grounds a contention that there is no provision in the rule to treat the period of suspension as dies non and as per F.R. 54-B, the period of suspension of the applicant should be treated as the period spent on duty because there was no justification in keeping the applicant under suspension and the applicant was reinstated on 17.5.1996 after completion of the inquiry. The applicant also submitted that the inquiry was delayed due to administrative reasons and the delay was not directly attributable to him. The subsistence allowance was increased to 55% on completion of three months of suspension and afterwards the same was increased to 75% since the applicant was not responsible for the delay. The said O.A. came to be disposed of by this Tribunal by Order dated 9.2.2001 and the applicant was asked to submit a revision application to the revisional authority and the revisional authority was directed to consider the revision application in accordance with the rules and to take note of the observations made by this Tribunal during the course of the order. Accordingly, on 23.2.2001, the applicant submitted a revision application and on 12.7.2001, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order, as revisional authority, setting aside the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed and ordered de novo disciplinary proceedings from the stage of issue of fresh charge memorandum duly including one Sri. K. Alexander as one of the listed witnesses under Annexure. IV. However, since the applicant was imposed with penalty of removal from service for his unauthorised absence from duty from 31.7.1997 onwards in a different proceeding dated 7.9.1999 and accordingly he was removed from service with effect from 7.9.1999, the revisional authority observed that no effect will be given to these orders passed on the revision petition submitted by the applicant in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal except treating the period of suspension as suspension only. The applicant challenged the impugned order in the present O.A. in so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as suspension only and sought for the above reliefs.

(3.) WE have heard the arguments advanced by the applicant, who appeared in person, and the learned standing Counsel Mr. N.R. Devaraj for the respondents.