Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rakesh Kumar Sinha vs Railway on 17 April, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
(Nainital Circuit Sitting)
O.A. No. 1040/2025
Order reserved on: 02.04.2026.
Order pronounced on: 17.04.2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Aged about 78 Years,
S/o Late Anand Swaroop Sinha,
R/o 1337, Heritage Colony, Khasra No.-7,
Kuakhera, Kashipur, District-Udham Singh Nagar
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. N. K. Papnoi through VC )
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary Railway, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North East Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P.
3. Divisional Railway Manager/Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
North East Railway, Izzatnagar, Bareily, U.P.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. T. C. Aggarwal through VC)
Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.18
SHARMA 14:44:12
+05'30'
2
OA No. 1040/2025
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: -
"a. To quashed the impugned undated order, which is passed in compliance of the order dated 20.10.2023 passed in OA No. 959/2018 Rakesh Kumar Sinha Vs. Union of India and other by which the claim of the petitioner rejected without considering actual fact of the matter, after calling entire record from the respondents.
b. To issue order of direction commanding to the respondents to release the entire service benefits admissible allowances and the pay for the period the petitioner illegally ousted from his services for which applicant is entitled by counting the entire length of service for all practical purpose and to recalculate all services dues including pension, gratuity and to pay the same to the applicant, along with arrears together with 18% interest and to correct the record of respondents treated the removal order was never in existence. c. To grant compensation in d. Any other relief which the court deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he was initially appointed as "Guard C" vide appointment letter dated 25.01.1978 (Annexure A-3) and was posted at Bareilly City.
NEETU Thereafter, the applicant was promoted to the post of "Guard Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30'
(Passenger)" vide Office Order dated 18.03.1988 (Annexure A-4) issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Izzatnagar. While posted at Pilibhit Junction, the applicant was served with an order dated 30.09.1991 (Annexure A-5) (communicated on 18.10.1991), whereby he was removed with immediate effect without conducting any proper enquiry or supplying the enquiry report which he sought 3 OA No. 1040/2025 on 22.11.1991 (Annexure A-6). Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal dated 30.11.1991 (Annexure A-7) before the DRM. The applicant was dismissed on 14.09.1995 on the ground of limitation. Applicant filed Revision Petition dated 14.10.1996 (Annexure A-11).
2.1 The Revisional Authority, vide orders dated 06.03.1997 and 18.03.1997 [(Annexure A-14 (Colly)], quashed the removal order on the ground of non-supply of the enquiry report and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was reinstated and joined duties on 31.03.1997 (Annexure A-15). The respondents also issued an office order dated 21.05.1997 (Annexure A-16) taking the applicant back on duty. Thereafter, an enquiry report was again supplied vide letter dated 28.04.1998 [Annexure A-17 (Colly)] and the applicant submitted his reply. However, no final order was passed and the proceedings were not taken to their logical conclusion.
2.2 In the year 2006, due to medical issues, fresh disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant for unauthorized absence, culminating in an order of compulsory retirement w.e.f. Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.18
SHARMA 14:44:12
+05'30'
29.01.2007 [Annexure A-18 (Colly)]. The applicant thereafter submitted representations dated 04.03.2007 and 30.06.2009 [Annexure A-19 (Colly)] seeking grant of service benefits for the period during which he was illegally removed from service. As no action was taken, the applicant issued a legal notice dated 4 OA No. 1040/2025 18.07.2018 (Annexure A-20) seeking release of retiral and consequential benefits. The applicant earlier approached this Tribunal in O. A. No. 959/2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.10.2023 (Annexure A-2) directing the respondents to decide the representation by a speaking order. In compliance, the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 29.11.2023 (Annexure A-21). Due to non-compliance, the applicant filed Contempt Petition No. 817/2024, which was disposed of on 20.12.2024 (Annexure A-22) after the respondents filed a compliance affidavit enclosing the impugned order. The impugned order dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure A-1), passed in purported compliance of Tribunal's directions, rejected the claim of the applicant without proper consideration of facts and legal issues. 2.3 Hence, the present O.A. has been filed challenging the impugned order and seeking consequential service and retiral benefits.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. In response thereto, the applicant has also filed rejoinder.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.18
SHARMA 14:44:12
+05'30'
4. The present O.A. is being filed, inter alia, on the following grounds: -
i. That the enquiry report was sent with letter dated 10.02.1997, in regard to the major punishment proposed vide 5 OA No. 1040/2025 order dated 27.12.1990, wherein it was directed that he may submit his clarification/explanation within 15 days to the disciplinary authority.
ii. That in response to the letter dated 10.02.1997, the applicant filed his reply vide letter dated 28.02.1997, in which he specifically mentioned that he received the aforesaid letter along with a suspicious alleged enquiry report; that the enquiry was never conducted in the presence of the applicant and the enquiry report is devoid of proof of the charges framed against the employee; hence, it is merely an empty formality and not acceptable.
iii. That the Revising Authority quashed the removal order vide orders dated 06.03.1997 and 18.03.1997, wherein it was mentioned that after going through the whole record available on the file and upon careful scrutiny thereof, it is evident that the applicant had not been served a copy of the enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer by the administration. Under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, a copy of the enquiry report must be served on the delinquent Railway employee. Under Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' the circumstances and in the fitness of the case, it was decided that N.I.P. dated 03.10.1991 issued to the applicant is withdrawn without prejudice, and the disciplinary authority was directed to proceed with the case from the stage of completion of enquiry, i.e., by serving a copy of the enquiry report to the applicant.
6OA No. 1040/2025 iv. That thereafter, in pursuance of the orders passed by the Revising Authority dated 06.03.1997 and 18.03.1997, the applicant joined his duties on 31.03.1997. The respondent No. 2 took him on duty on his earlier post of Guard/Passenger in the pay scale of 1350-2200 at the Divisional Railway Manager (Parichalan) Office. In compliance with the orders passed by the Revising Authority dated 06.03.1997 and 18.03.1997, the respondents permitted him to join his services on the same post from which his services had been illegally terminated, and after joining, the disciplinary authority served the enquiry report through letter dated 28.04.1998 and directed him to submit his reply within 15 days, failing which it would be presumed that he had nothing to say in the matter and the competent authority would take a decision on the basis of the enquiry report. v. That in response thereto, the applicant submitted his explanation/reply to the disciplinary authority, stating that the entire proceedings initiated against him were vitiated by arbitrary motives and were totally illegal and not tenable in Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA the eyes of law, and that he was liable to be exonerated from Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' the entire disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority did not proceed further with the departmental proceedings and dropped the same at that stage, and the applicant thereafter continuously served 7 OA No. 1040/2025 without any interference, diligently and to the best of his ability.
vi. That in the year 2006, the applicant faced health problems, and due to his ill health, he had to take medical leave which was not sanctioned by the authority concerned. A fresh departmental proceeding was initiated against him for unauthorized leave through memo dated 30.08.2006, and a show cause notice was served upon him. In response, the applicant submitted his explanation on 11.12.2006 and requested voluntary retirement from service. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, and the applicant retired from service w.e.f. 29.01.2007, which was accepted by him, and against which he did not prefer any objection/appeal. He also requested grant of all post-retirement benefits, including for the period during which he was illegally and arbitrarily kept out of service. vii. That after his reinstatement, the applicant made several representations to the authorities concerned to count the period of his illegal removal as part of his service and to grant Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' all admissible benefits, but to no avail. Thereafter, after his retirement, he again made representations dated 04.03.2007 and 30.06.2009, stating that the punishment imposed vide order dated 03.10.1991 had been cancelled vide order dated 06.03.1997, but he had not been granted the benefit of that period till date. He requested that the said period be counted 8 OA No. 1040/2025 in his service and that his post-retiral dues, including gratuity, leave encashment, and pay for the said period, be released accordingly.
viii. That when the Revising Authority quashed the illegal removal order, it was observed that the applicant had not been served a copy of the enquiry report as required under the rules, and the disciplinary authority was directed to proceed from the stage of completion of enquiry. Thereafter, when the disciplinary authority dropped the proceedings after obtaining the reply from the applicant, he became entitled to all service benefits under the law. Thus, the action of the respondents in depriving him of such benefits is unjustified, and the applicant is entitled to all service benefits for that period with interest.
ix. That the applicant continuously approached the respondent authorities, but no heed was paid to his genuine requests. He then sent a legal notice to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 18.07.2018 through registered post, seeking release of all service benefits with admissible allowances and pay for the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' relevant period, recalculation of service dues including pension and gratuity, along with arrears, interest @ 18%, and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of notice within one month. x. That the respondent authorities failed to take any action on the said notice even after lapse of more than two months, 9 OA No. 1040/2025 whereupon the applicant filed O.A. No. 959 of 2018 titled Rakesh Kumar Sinha Vs. Union of India & Ors., which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.10.2023, directing the competent authority to decide the legal notice as well as the O.A. as a comprehensive representation by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 45 days.
xi. That after obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 20.10.2023, the applicant submitted a representation dated 29.11.2023 requesting compliance of the said order. xii. That the respondent/competent authority did not decide the matter within the prescribed time, and the applicant filed C. P. No. 817/2024 on 07.10.2024. In response, the respondents filed a compliance affidavit on 12.12.2024, enclosing the impugned order, and the Contempt Petition was closed by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.12.2024. xiii. That thereafter, in compliance with the Contempt Petition, the respondents filed a compliance affidavit enclosing the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3, Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' whereby the claim of the applicant was rejected without considering the actual facts and legal issues noted by this Tribunal, particularly that there was no material on record to show whether the enquiry was taken to its logical conclusion 10 OA No. 1040/2025 after the Revising Authority's orders dated 06.03.1997 and 18.03.1997.
xiv. That the respondents cannot take benefit of their own wrong, as the services of the applicant were illegally terminated by the disciplinary authority by misuse of power, which was later withdrawn by the Revising Authority without prejudice. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to all consequential benefits for that period, including pay, gratuity, etc., along with interest.
xv. That the applicant, who is more than 78 years of age and suffering from various old-age ailments, is facing financial hardship due to non-release of proper pensionary benefits, including the period of illegal termination which was quashed by the Revising Authority. Since there is a continuing wrong on the part of the respondents, the applicant is entitled to all post-retiral benefits.
xvi. That it is an accepted position that pension is not a bounty; an employee earns it by virtue of long, continuous, faithful, and unblemished service. The right to receive proper Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' pension has been treated as a right to property, including the right to proper salary and retiral dues based on correct fixation. Thus, the action of the department is not justified. xvii. That in a welfare state like India, the employer is expected to act as a model employer and is under a legal 11 OA No. 1040/2025 obligation to ensure that the fundamental rights of the applicant under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution are not violated. The employer is also obligated to follow the mandate of Articles 36, 39, 41, 42, and 43 of the Constitution of India. However, instead of discharging these obligations, the respondents have subjected the applicant to arbitrariness and high-handedness.
xviii. That the right to advancement in service is part of the right to life under the Constitution of India and is also a property right under Article 300A, which cannot be curtailed without due process of law.
xix. That the act of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice and amounts to infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and is also contrary to Section 23 of the Contract Act. xx. That in Umesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand, the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand held that if an employee is terminated without following due procedure of law, or if such termination is declared illegal, he is entitled Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' to all consequential benefits. Similar views have been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts that an illegally terminated employee is entitled to benefits as if the termination never occurred.
12OA No. 1040/2025 SUBMISSION BY THE RESPONDENTS
5. Learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 13.10.2025 on behalf of respondents, submitted that correct fact regarding the unauthorized absence of applicant (from 21.02.1990 to 27.12.1990 i.e. total 310 days) is that he was issued charge memo dated 27.12.1990 and same was sent to his residential address by registered post. It is also submitted that in the instant matter enquiry officer was nominated by the Competent Authority and during enquiry proceeding the Inquiry Officer on 24.07.1991 mentioned that the applicant admitted all the charges. It is further submitted that the enquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer has been sent to the applicant's residential address vide Registered Post dated 05.08.1991 wherein it was clearly mentioned that the applicant may file his representation/objection to the enquiry report within 15 days but the same was not done by the applicant. It is also submitted that in the instant matter, Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Izzatnagar also sent a letter dated 22.07.1991 to the applicant to raise his grievance before the Divisional Safety Officer regarding his allegation that the enquiry report against him NEETU is incomplete. It is also submitted that the applicant did not Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' disclose or mention the mode through which he sent the aforesaid letter.
5.1 It is also submitted that the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal filed by the applicant on the ground of limitation (time- barred) vide appellate order dated 14.09.1995 which was sent on 13 OA No. 1040/2025 the same day to the residential address of the applicant through Registered Post.
5.2 The respondents contend that the action taken by the Appellate Authority is in accordance with provision of Railway Servant (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968. At the relevant time, the Divisional Safety Officer was the Appointing Authority of the applicant. The applicant himself on 09.02.1991 in writing admitted all charges leveled against him. It is submitted that the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority to remove the applicant from Railway service on the basis of disciplinary proceeding was just, proper and in accordance with law looking into the grave misconduct of the applicant.
5.3 It is submitted that the applicant never informed to the Competent Authority regarding his long absence from 21.02.1990 to 27.12.1990 by any means and such a long unauthorized absence from duty amounts gross indiscipline and misconduct and accordingly, the applicant was issued charge memo and consequently awarded punishment.
5.4 The respondents further contend that earlier the enquiry
Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.18
SHARMA 14:44:12
+05'30'
report had been sent to applicant by Registered Post on 05.08.1991 at his residential address and thereafter, on making complaint he was again served a copy of enquiry report on 10.02.1997. It is submitted thereof that during enquiry proceeding on 09.02.1991 the applicant himself admitted all the charges leveled against him in writing, hence, there was no occasion of further enquiry in the 14 OA No. 1040/2025 matter. The contention of the applicant under para is totally baseless and illogical. It is submitted that in compliance of Revising Authority's order dated 06.03.1997 the applicant was again served enquiry officer report for further proceeding. It is submitted that as per the Revisionary Authority's order 06.03.1997, the Disciplinary Authority served enquiry report through letter dated 28.04.1998 and directed to give his reply within 15 days. 5.5 It is stated that the applicant even after reinstatement to the post never performed official duty with devotion and integrity and remain absent from duty on 29.12.2000, 27.09.2002 and 20.02.2006 and was charge-sheeted with major penalty which resulted into imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement. The applicant was habitual of absenting from duty. It is further submitted that the Competent Authority has rightly passed the order of compulsory retirement dated 29.01.2007. The order passed by the Competent Authority is just, proper and in accordance with the rules.
5.6 It is further submitted that as the applicant was on unauthorized absence from his duty on 21.02.1990 to 27.12.1990 Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA (310 days) and he did not perform government duty for this period, Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' hence, is not entitled for any salary/wages or other consequential benefit for that period. It is submitted that the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3 is just and proper in accordance with the rules. However, it is submitted that the applicant has already been given all entitled benefits as per rules. 15 OA No. 1040/2025 However, it is submitted that all legal claim of the applicant has already been given to him and there is no arbitrariness and illegality has been caused by the respondent in the matter. It is submitted that there is no violation of Article 14, 16, 21 and 300 - A of the Constitution of India and Section 23 of the Contract Act on the part of respondents. It is submitted that the ratio of the cited judgment is not applicable to the case in hand. 5.7 In view of the facts and submission made here in above the applicant is not entitled for the relief claimed under the para and the same is liable to be rejected in the interest of justice. REJOINDER BY THE APPLICANT
6. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 13.11.2025 reiterating the averments made in the O.A. and denying the allegations made by the respondents. The applicant submits that the respondents are misleading the Tribunal by saying that they have conducted proper enquiry before passing the impugned order while the revising authority clearly mentioned in order dated 06.03.1997 and 18.03.1997, that "after going through the whole record available on Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA the file and a careful scrutiny thereof, it is evident that the applicant Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' has not been served a copy of enquiry report of the enquiry officer by the administration, under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules a copy of the Enquiry Report must be served to the delinquent railway employee" as such the contention of the respondents is totally wrong and misleading. It is also submitted that before 16 OA No. 1040/2025 issuing order of removal from service the respondents not conducted any proper inquiry, and the inquiry mentioned by the respondent is a same show process which is not communicated to the applicant.
6.1 It is further submitted that the departmental appeal of the applicant rejected on the grounds of delay in a cursory manner while the departmental appeal against the illegal removal order dated 30.09.1991 filed by the petitioner was well within the limitation because departmental appeal filed by the petitioner on 30.11.1991.
6.2 It is submitted that the revising authority vide his order dated 06.03.1997 and 18.03.1997, after quashing the removal order clearly mentioned that "after going through the while record available on the file and a careful scrutiny thereof, it is evident that the applicant has not been served a copy of enquiry report of the enquiry officer by the administration. Under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules a copy of the Enquiry Report must be served to the delinquent railway employee. Under the circumstances and in the fitness of the case it is decided that NIP dated 03.10.1991 issued to Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 the applicant is withdrawn without prejudice and Disciplinary +05'30' Authority is ordered to proceed with the case from the stage of completion of Enquiry i.e. by serving a copy of the Enquiry Report to the applicant.
6.3 It is submitted that after quashing the impugned removal order by the Revising Authority by which it was ordered to the 17 OA No. 1040/2025 Disciplinary Authority by which it was ordered to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the case from the stage of completion of Enquiry after serving a copy of the Enquiry Report, then it is clear that the applicant was wrongly and illegally removed from his service as such his absence from service is due to illegal removal order, consequentially the entire period of absence, which is due to illegal removal should also be counted for service benefits of applicant and the applicant has legal right to obtain all consequential benefits for that period must be counted for his service benefits. It is also important to mention here that the Disciplinary Authority did not proceed accordingly as such the respondents' authority cannot punish the applicant without following the proper procedure prescribed in the DAR Rules, 1968. 6.4 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second round of litigation and earlier the applicant filed O. A. No. 959/2018 before this Tribunal and the same was disposed of by this Tribunal with the following directions:-
"3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings on record, we find that the Revisional Authority vide order dated 06/18.03.1997 set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) thereby directing the DA to supply a copy of the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU enquiry report to the applicant as mandated under the Railway SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' Servant (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1968. There is no material on record to show that whether enquiry was taken to its logical conclusion after passing the aforesaid order. The documents placed on record also show that applicant was compulsorily retired from service vide DA order dated 29.01.2007, which has not been challenged till date. However, he does not dispute that all retiral dues have been paid but he would contend that retiral dues so paid have not been taken into consideration, the previous proceedings to the effect thereto and pay and allowances. He also sent a legal notice in this regard, which has not been decided till date.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant would be satisfied, if his legal notice and the present OA be treated as 18 OA No. 1040/2025 his comprehensive representation (s), which may be decided in a time bound manner. To such a submission of the learned counsel for applicant, learned counsel for respondents has no objection.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid limited prayer of the learned counsel for applicant, we dispose of the present OA with the direction to the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to decide the legal notice as well as the present OA as a comprehensive representation(s) of the applicant upon which a reasoned and speaking order be passed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order under intimation to the applicant. It is made clear that we have not entered into the merits of the case.
6. OA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs."
6.5 It is important to mention that even though the respondents were well versed with the entire proceedings but despite that they were not disclosed or given answer that question "whether enquiry was taken to its logical conclusion after passing the order dated 18.03.1997. The documents placed on record also show that the applicant was compulsorily retired from service vide D.A. order dated 29.01.2007" on the basis of the earlier O. A. of the applicant was disposed of.
6.6 It is also submitted that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Tribunal in a just and proper manner and the order impugned is not a speaking order at all because this Tribunal decide the earlier O. A. with a direction to Competent Authority amongst the respondents to decide the legal notice as Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 well as the present O. A. be treated as his comprehensive +05'30' representation (s), which may be decided in a time bound manner. 6.7 It is contended that the respondents have not paid the service dues to the applicant for the period for which he was illegally ousted from the service in an arbitrary manner. 19 OA No. 1040/2025
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings on record. ANALYSIS
8. The short issue which arises for consideration in the present O.A. is whether the applicant is entitled to service benefits, including pay and allowances, for the period during which he remained out of service, i.e., the period in question.
9. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 959/2018, the competent authority has passed a speaking order dated 12.02.2024, whereby the claim of the applicant has been duly considered.
10. From a perusal of the said order, it is evident that the respondents have already examined the entire matter, including the claim of the applicant regarding treatment of the disputed period. The Competent Authority has categorically decided that the said period shall be treated as Extraordinary Leave (EOL) in accordance with the applicable rules, and a copy of the same has also been provided to the applicant.
11. Once the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA regarding the treatment of the period in question, and the same has Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' been duly communicated, the scope of interference by this Tribunal is limited.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 17.01.1989 in Civil Appeal Nos. 165-166 of 1989 in the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh, reported in 1989 20 OA No. 1040/2025 AIR 997 has held that judicial review is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the decision itself, unless it is arbitrary or perverse. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"28. It not unoften happens that what appears to be a judicial review for breach of natural justice is, in reality, a review for abuse of discretion. It is true that amongst the many grounds' put forward in the show cause notice dated 19.1.1986, quite a few overlap each other and are distinguishable from those urged for the cancellation of the lease itself. Some of the grounds might, perhaps, be somewhat premature. Some of them even if true are so trivial that no authority could reasonably be expected to cancel the permission on that basis. For instance the ground that the permission was applied for and granted in the name of one only of the two lessees would be one such. However, Judicial review under Article 226 cannot be converted into an appeal. Judicial review is directed, not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision making-process. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, [1982] 1 WLR 1155 refers to the merits-legality distinction in judicial review. Lord Hail- sham said:
"The purpose "of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court."
Lord Brightman observed:
" ..... Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made ..... "
And held that it would be an error to think:
" ..... that the court sits in judgment not only on the correctness of the decision-making process but also on the correctness of the decision itself."
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA When the issue raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' account of relevant, factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors. In the present case, it is, however, not necessary to go into the merits and relevance of the grounds having regard to the view we propose to take on the point on natural justice.
It would, however, be appropriate for the statutory authority, if it proposes to initiate action afresh, to classify the grounds pointing out which grounds, in its opinion, support the allegation of fraud or misrepresentation and which, in its view constitute subsequent violations of the terms and conditions of the grant. The grounds must 21 OA No. 1040/2025 be specific so as to afford the Lessees an effective opportunity of showing cause."
12.1 Further, in judgment dated 03.11.2014 in Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1723 the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that Courts/Tribunals cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with administrative decisions unless there is a patent illegality, perversity, or violation of principles of natural justice. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings as under:-
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."
12.2 In the present case, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the decision of the respondents treating the said period as EOL Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU suffers from any such illegality or procedural infirmity.
SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.18
SHARMA 14:44:12
+05'30'
12.3 The contention of the applicant that he is entitled to full pay and allowances for the said period on account of setting aside of the removal order is also not tenable in law. In judgment dated 01.10.1993 in Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 in the matter of Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, reported in 22 OA No. 1040/2025 1993 (4) SCC 727 while dealing with the effect of non-supply of enquiry report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that relief is not automatic and depends on the facts of each case, including whether prejudice is caused.
12.4 It is also a settled principle that "no work, no pay" is applicable unless the facts justify otherwise. In judgment dated 17.04.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 7953/2004 in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. E. K. Bhaskaran Pillai, reported in AIR 2007 SC 2645, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that back wages are not a matter of right and depend upon several factors including the conduct of the employee. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-
"We have considered the decisions cited on behalf of both the sides. So far as the situation with regard to monetary benefits with retrospective promotion is concerned, that depends upon case to case. There are various facets which have to be considered. Sometimes in a case of departmental enquiry or in criminal case it depends on the authorities to grant full back wages or 50 per cent of back wages looking to the nature of delinquency involved in the matter or in criminal cases where the incumbent has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt or full acquittal. Sometimes in the matter when the person is superseded and he has challenged the same before Court or Tribunal and he succeeds in that and direction is given for reconsideration of his case from the date persons junior to him were appointed, in that case the Court may grant sometime full benefits with retrospective effect and sometimes it may not. Particularly when the administration has wrongly denied his due then in that case he should be given full benefits including monetary benefit subject to there being Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' any change in law or some other supervening factors. However, it is very difficult to set down any hard and fast rule. The principle 'no work no pay' cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb. There are exceptions where courts have granted monetary benefits also. However, so far as present case is concerned, as per directions given by the Court, petitioner's case was considered and it was found that persons junior to him were appointed and he was wrongly denied. Therefore, the petitioner was promoted from retrospective effect i.e. 15.9.1961 but he was not paid the benefit of promotion in terms of arrears of salary. Therefore, he approached the Court and learned Single Judge did not give him the monetary benefit of the promotional post from retrospective effect in terms of arrears of salary. In the review application, the benefit was given from the date he filed O.P. 23 OA No. 1040/2025 No. 585 of 1975 i.e. 15.6.1972. This appears to be reasonable. The petitioner did not approach the Court for the back wages from 15.9.1961 but he filed a petition dated 15.6.1972 and the Court granted the benefit from the date of filing of the petition before the Court i.e. 15.6.1972. The incumbent in the meanwhile has retired on 31.7.1980. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the High Court appears to be justified and there is no ground to interfere in it.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs."
13. In the present case, the applicant was removed from service vide respondents' order dated 30.09.1991 which, as per his own version, has been received by him on 18.10.1991 (Annexure A-5). The applicant filed an appeal against the said order of removal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 14.09.2015 on the ground of limitation. The applicant filed a revision petition and the Revisionary Authority vide order dated 06.03.1997 and 18.03.1997 [Annexure A/14 (Colly)] quashed the punishment. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-
"After going through the whole records available on the file and a careful scrutiny thereof, it is evident that Shri Sinha has not been served a copy of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer by the Administration. Under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, a copy of the Enquiry Report must be served to the delinquent railway employee. Under the circumstances and in the fitness of the case it is decided that NIP No. E/PC/R. K. Sinha/GD/II dated dt. 3.10.1991 issued to Shri. R.K. Sinha is withdrawn without prejudice and disciplinary authority is ordered to proceed with the case from the stage of completion of Enquiry i.e. by serving a copy of the Enquiry Report to Shri R. K. Sinha Ex. Guard/PBE. (sic)"
14. As per the applicant, he joined duties on 31.03.1997. The main Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 +05'30' contention of the applicant is that the period from date of removal, i.e. 30.09.1991 to his rejoining the duties on 31.03.1997, has not been regularized.
15. In para 5 of the order/judgment dated 20.10.2023 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 959/2018, the respondents have issued undated speaking order (Annexure A-1) which is impugned in the 24 OA No. 1040/2025 present O.A., wherein it has been stated that the applicant remained absent and the period of absence has been treated as leave without pay and therefore, no benefit of the said period is accrued to the applicant.
16. The Original Service Book of applicant was called from the respondents while hearing the case and the same was placed by them for perusal of the Tribunal. At page nos. 359-360 of the above mentioned Service Book contains an order of respondents issued on 29.01.2007 vide which the different periods of absence (i.e. 56 occasions) have already been decided by the respondents. It could be seen at Page 2 of Page No. 360 that a period from 03.10.1991 to 21.05.1997 totaling to 2055 days has been treated as EOL with a remark that "Railway sewa se remove hone par se duty prapt karne tak ki awadhi". Copy of this order has also been endorsed to the applicant. The said decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Rule 32 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 pertains to extraordinary leave and the same reads as under:-
"32. Extraordinary leave (1) Extraordinary leave may be granted to a Government servant (other than a military officer) in special circumstances-
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.18
(a) when no other leave is admissible:
Digitally signed by NEETU
SHARMA 14:44:12
+05'30'
(b) when other leave is admissible, but the Government servant applies in writing for the grant of extraordinary leave.
(2) Unless the President in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case otherwise determines, no Government servant, who is not in permanent employ or quasi-permanent employ, shall be granted extraordinary leave on any one occasion in excess of the following limits:-
(a) three months;25 OA No. 1040/2025
(b) six months where the Government servant has completed one year‟s continuous service on the date of expiry of leave of the kind due and admissible under these rules, including three months‟ extraordinary leave under Clause (a) and his request for such leave is supported by a medical certificate as required by these rules;
(b) Deleted.
(d) eighteen months, where the Government servant who has completed one year‟s continuous service is undergoing treatment for -
(i) Pulmonary Tuberculosis or Pleurisy of tubercular origin, in a recognized sanatorium;
NOTE.- The concession of extraordinary leave up to eighteen months shall be admissible also to a Government servant suffering from Pulmonary Tuberculosis or Pleurisy of tubercular origin who receives treatment at his residence under a Tuberculosis Specialist recognized as such by the State Administrative Medical Officer concerned and produces a certificate signed by that Specialist to the effect that he is under his treatment and that he has reasonable chances of recovery on the expiry of the leave recommended.
(ii) Tuberculosis of any other part of the body by a qualified Tuberculosis Specialist or a Civil Surgeon or Staff Surgeon; or
(iii) Leprosy in a recognized leprosy institution or by a Civil Surgeon or Staff Surgeon or a Specialist in leprosy hospital recognized as such by the State Administrative Medical Officer concerned;
(iv) Cancer or for mental illness, in an institution recognized for the treatment of such disease.
(MOF Notification No. P-11012/1/77-E-IV (A) dated 21.11.1979)
(e) twenty-four months, where the leave is required for the purpose of prosecuting studies certified to be in the public interest, provided the Government servant concerned has completed three years„ continuous service on the date of expiry of leave of the kind due and admissible under these rules, including three months„ extraordinary leave under Clause (a).
(3)(a) Where a Government servant is granted extraordinary leave in relaxation of the provisions contained in Clause (e) of sub-rule (2), shall be required to execute a Bond in Form 6 undertaking to refund to the Government the actual amount of expenditure incurred by the Government during such leave plus that incurred by any other agency with interest thereon in the event of his not returning to duty on the Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 expiry of such leave or quitting the service before a period of three +05'30' years after return to duty.
(b) The Bond shall be supported by Sureties from two permanent Government servants having a status comparable to or higher than that of the Government servant.
(4) Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled tribes may, for the purpose of attending the Pre- Examination Training Course at the centers notified by the Government from time to time, be granted extraordinary leave by Head of Department in relaxation of the provisions of sub- rule (2). 26 OA No. 1040/2025 (5) Two spells of extraordinary leave, if intervened by any other kind of leave, shall be treated as one continuous spell of extraordinary leave for the purposes of sub-rule (2).
(6) The authority competent to grant leave may commute retrospectively periods of absence without leave into extraordinary leave."
17. Extraordinary leave (EOL) generally breaks continuity of service and is not counted as qualifying service for pension unless it is for medical reasons, scientific studies or approved by the Government. Non-qualifying EOL reduces total service length, directly lowering the pension amount and can also have effect of postponement of increments. The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972/2021 and the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972 lays down the effect of EOL. As per OM No. 13017/20/85-Estt. (L) dated 18.02.1986, the following has been laid down:-
"2. The question of simplifying the procedure in this regard has been examined and the President is now pleased to decide that E.O.L. sanctioned for the following purpose as shall automatically count as qualifying service for pension and for increments without any further sanctions:-
i. E.O.L. granted due to inability of a Govt. servant to join or rejoin duty on account of civil commotion. ii. E.O.L. granted to a Govt. servant for prosecuting higher technical and scientific studies."
17.1 The applicant is not covered by any of the above mentioned two situations, hence, the period of absence has been treated as EOL not qualifying for pension and increments for the above Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.04.18 SHARMA 14:44:12 period.
+05'30'
18. In view of the above settled position of law, this Tribunal does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.
19. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed, being devoid of merit.
20. Pending M.A. (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27 OA No. 1040/2025
21. No order as to costs.
22. The Registry is directed to return the Original Service Book of the applicant provided by the respondents under proper acknowledgement and a copy of acknowledgement shall be placed in O.A. file.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Ajay Pratap Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
Digitally signed by NEETU
NEETU SHARMA
Date: 2026.04.18
SHARMA 14:44:12
+05'30'