Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ashok Kumar vs Gm N.Rly. on 11 August, 2025
1- O.A. No. 402/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/402/2021
Pronounced on: 11.08.2025
Reserved on: 21.07.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Ashok Kumar son of Shri Ram Singh, age 62 years, resident of House
No. 814-B, Gali No. 8, Guru Nanak Nagar Patiala-1470001, Punjab.
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Rishav Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda
House, New Delhi-110001
2. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala
Cantt.-133001
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with Mr. Shivam
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
WADHWA
Dang and Ms. Kashika Maheshwary
2- O.A. No. 402/2021
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i). That Annexure A-1 dated 03.03.2020 to extent the Revisionary Authority has failed to decide the suspension period of the applicant from 28.11.2001 to 31.08.2003 and 17.02.2009 to the date of retirement i.e. 31.10.2018 be quashed and set aside and a direction be issued to the respondent no.2 to count the aforesaid period and after counting the said period, pensionary benefits be revised and be paid to the applicant with interest.
(ii). The action of the respondents in treating the applicant under deemed suspension from 2009 to 2018 be declared as wholly illegal and unjustified and applicant be held entitled to all the consequential benefits or in the alternative the applicant be held entitled to enhanced suspension allowance from 17.02.2009 to 31.10.2018 with interest.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant joined the Railway service as Booking Clerk on 16.11.1988. He was issued a Charge-sheet dated 01.09.2003 alleging, inter-alia, that he committed irregularities in defrauding the Railway Administration by pocketing Rs.75,863/- during the month of May to July, 2001 by putting fictitious PNR number of heavy amounts, fake voucher of PTA by showing wrong Digitally signed by MAMTA amount in CR Note. The inquiry was conducted and the Disciplinary WADHWA Authority, after considering representation of applicant, imposed the 3- O.A. No. 402/2021 punishment of "Removal from Service" with immediate effect vide Order dated 17.02.2009. The applicant submitted appeal on 09.03.2009. When the appeal was not decided by the appellate authority, the applicant filed O.A. No. 665/HP/2010 in this Tribunal wherein the directions were passed vide Order dated 11.08.2010 to decide the appeal of applicant within two months. Thereafter, the appeal was decided and rejected vide order dated 24.09.2010. The applicant submitted Revision Petition on 12.10.2010 and the same was also dismissed vide Order dated 14.03.2011. He filed OA No.75-PB- 2012 before this Tribunal challenging the punishment order dated 17.02.2009, Order-in-Appeal dated 24.09.2010 and Order-in-Revision dated 14.03.2011 and sought directions upon the respondents to take back him in service with all consequential benefits. The OA was allowed and disposed of vide Order dated 12.02.2014 by this Tribunal (Annexure A-2). The review application filed by the respondents was dismissed on 01.04.2014 by this Tribunal. The CWP filed by the respondents before the Hon‟ble High Court was also dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure A-3).
3. The applicant filed Execution Application No. 1341/2014 before this Tribunal seeking execution of order dated 12.02.2014. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, the respondents issued an order dated 05.12.2014 reinstating the applicant into service and he was deemed to have under suspension from the date of original order of removal from service (Annexure A-4). The respondents issued show- cause notice dated 03.01.2018 proposing to impose the penalty of Digitally signed by MAMTA Removal from Service on the ground that the applicant was convicted WADHWA on criminal charge on 08.08.2009. The respondents passed order 4- O.A. No. 402/2021 dated 30.01.2018 imposing a penalty of "Removal from Service" with immediate effect. The applicant sent reply to the SCN on 01.02.2018 after passing of removal order dated 30.01.2018. The applicant filed appeal against the order dated 30.01.2018. The same was decided after a direction from this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1340/2018 filed by the applicant. Pursuant to a direction from Tribunal in O.A. No. 106/2020 filed by the applicant against the inaction of the Revisionary Authority, the Respondent No. 2 disposed of the revision petition vide order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure A-1) converting the penalty of removal from service to that of compulsory retirement.
4. The applicant has challenged the order dated 03.03.2020 to the extent that the Revisionary authority has not decide on the suspension period of the applicant from 28.11.2001 to 31.08.2002 and 17.02.2009 to the date of compulsory retirement i.e. 31.10.2018. He has also contended that the action of the respondents in treating the applicant under suspension from 2009 to 2018 is wholly illegal and unjustified in view of the fact that the vide order dated 12.02.2014, the initial punishment order, order in appeal and order in revision were quashed the applicant was held entitled to reinstatement.
5. The respondents have filed short written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. It has been stated therein that the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment under the provisions of Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477 A, 120 B of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was under these circumstances that after giving an opportunity of Digitally signed by MAMTA hearing to the applicant, the penalty of removal from service was WADHWA imposed upon him. His Statutory Appeal was also rejected by the 5- O.A. No. 402/2021 Appellate Authority. However, the Revisional Authority by taking a sympathetic view and particularly the critical family circumstances of the applicant, reduced the penalty from 'removal from service' to 'compulsory retirement. During the period of criminal trial as well as departmental enquiry proceedings, the applicant remained under suspension. Now his plea is that the said suspension period be treated as qualifying service for pension
6. The respondents submitted that it is not a case of clear acquittal or acquittal even by giving him the benefit of doubt, rather the applicant has been held guilty and punished for misappropriation of funds and corruption by the learned Special Judge. His appeal against his conviction and sentence is still pending in the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide CRA No. 1982-SB of 2009. Thus, it is apparent that applicant is suffering from stigma of conviction till date. If the Revisional Authority had taken a sympathetic view particularly keeping in view his critical family circumstances, the applicant cannot be permitted to open his mouth too wide. Otherwise there was no justification in reducing the penalty and in fact it was a case of dismissal of applicant from service. Under these circumstances the claim made by the applicant through the above noted O.A. is wholly unsustainable. Further, since no decision had been taken by the Competent Authority regarding his suspension period till date, the Competent Authority now considered the matter afresh and initially passed an order dated 14.09.2021 and 06.12.2021 stating that the said period of suspension cannot counted as qualifying service Digitally signed by MAMTA (Annexures R-1 and R-2 respectively).
WADHWA
7. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder.
6- O.A. No. 402/2021
8. The admitted facts are that the applicant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Court of CBI under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B IPC and under Sections 13(1) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appeal filed by the applicant against his conviction and sentence is pending in the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRA No. 1982-SB-2009. He was imposed penalty of removal from service. This Tribunal vide order dated 12.02.2014 (Annexure A-2) in O.A. No. 75/PB/2012, after observing that the principles of natural justice have been violated, quashed the impugned orders of removal from service, appellate authority order and revisionary authority order. The applicant was held entitled to be reinstated with liberty to the respondents to initiate disciplinary proceedings de novo. The operative part of the order is reproduced hereunder: -
"10. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside. The applicant is entitled to be reinstated. The respondents will be free to hold disciplinary proceedings de novo as per the rules, also following the principles of natural justice. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly. "
The respondents duly complied with the aforesaid order of this Tribunal vide order their dated 05.12.2014 whereby the applicant was reinstated as Booking Clerk/PTA and vide the same order it was ordered that the applicant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or Digitally signed by MAMTA compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 10(4) CCS (CCA) Rules. The WADHWA contention of the applicant is that the order dated 05.12.2014 is bad in 7- O.A. No. 402/2021 law to the extent it declared that the applicant shall be under deemed suspension from the date of the original order of removal from service in view of this Tribunal‟s order dated 12.02.2014. From the perusal of this Tribunal‟ order, it is clear that the impugned orders were quashed only for lack of adherence to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and in view thereof only the impugned orders were quashed and he was held entitled to reinstatement. The reinstatement ordered by this Tribunal cannot be interpreted as exoneration from the charges of misconduct. Evidently, the charge sheet dated 01.09.2003 was not quashed by this Tribunal and the respondents were also given liberty to hold disciplinary proceedings de novo pursuant to charge sheet dated 01.09.2003. Therefore, the action of the respondents in putting the applicant under deemed suspension after his reinstatement, as per CCS (CCA) Rules cannot be held illegal in the absence of any reference of any contrary provisions, by the applicant. .
9. The applicant has also contended that the Revisionary Authority did not take a decision on the suspension period (26.11.2001 to 31.08.2003 and 17.02.2009 to 30.01.2018) and prayed for counting of suspension period from 28.11.2011 to 31.08.2003 and 17.02.2009 to the date of compulsory retirement as the qualifying period for pensionary benefits. During the pendency of the O.A., the Competent Authority passed the order dated 14.09.2021 declaring that the suspension period of the applicant (26.11.2001 to 31.08.2003 and 17.02.2009 to 30.01.2018) is to be treated as "Suspension" and it will not count as qualifying service (Annexure R-1). In continuation of this Digitally signed by MAMTA letter, the Competent Authority issued a detailed reasoned order dated WADHWA 06.12.2021, supported by relevant rules to declare that the suspension 8- O.A. No. 402/2021 period of the applicant will not count as qualifying service. The contents of this letter are reproduced hereunder:-
"Sub: Suspension period of Sh. Ashok Kumar 5/o Sh. Ram Singh Ex BC/PTA.
In continuation to this office even letter no dated 14.09.2021, it is clarified that Sh. Ashok Kumar Ex BC/PTA was convicted by special court of CBI U/s 1208, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A of IPC and U/s 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention and corruption Act of 1988.
A notice under Rule 14(1) of D&AR was given to delinquent employee Sh. Ashok Kumar Ex. BC/PTA vide even letter no, dated 03.01.2018 but delinquent employee didn't bother to submit his defence against said notice. Thus competent authority i.e. DCM/UMB imposed the penalty of "Removal from service"
vide even letter no dated 30.01.2018 Delinquent employee made appeal to (AA) Appellate Authority i.e. Sr. DCM/UMB against the orders of "Removal from service" issued by DA I.e. DCM/UMB and same was regretted by Sr. DCM/UMB.
Delinquent employee then made appeal to (RA) Revisionary Authority ie. ADRM/OP/UMB against the orders issued by DA .i.e. DCM/UMB & A.A. i.e. Sr. DCM/UMB. Revisionary Authority i.e. ADRM/OP/UMB reduced the punishment of "Removal from service" to "compulsory retirement" after considering the critical family conditions and serious health condition of Delinquent employee, Delinquent employee made appeal in Hon'ble High Court of Haryana & Punjab at Chandigarh vide no. CRM no. 42906/2009 in CRA no. 1982 58/2009 against the conviction orders passed by Special court of CBI but his appeal is still pending.
Thus considering the above facts and as per Para No. 614 of IRVM 2006 (Indian Railway Vigilance Manual) (the period of Digitally suspension followed by removal or dismissal or compulsory signed by MAMTA WADHWA retirement from service is not covered by Rule 1343 and 1344 R- II and need not be regularized Such a period will be governed by Rule 1342- R-II i.e. it will be treated as "suspension" 9- O.A. No. 402/2021
As regard pension, however, it will not count as qualifying service vide Rule 2431 (CSR 416) -II (now Rule 37 of the - RS(Pension suspension period (26.11.2001 to 31.08.2003 and 17.02.2009 to 30.01.2018) is to be treated as "Suspension". This period will not count as qualifying service."
10. The above letter is well reasoned and rule-based order issued by the respondents conveying their decision as to how the suspension period of the applicant shall be treated. The Competent Authority has ordered that the suspension period of the applicant shall be treated as „Suspension‟ as per Rule 1342-R-11 and will not count as qualifying service for pension as per Rule 2431 (CSR 416)R-II. The validity and legality of the above order has not been challenged by the applicant as no rejoinder has been filed to contest this decision of the respondents, which shows that the applicant has no rebuttal to the applicability of Rule 13942-R-11 to the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out any illegality in the said order and non-applicability of the quoted rules to the applicant‟s case. I have also gone through the rule-position and find that the decision of the respondents is in accordance with the rule position. In view thereof, I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that the suspension period be treated as qualifying period for pensionionary benefit.
11. Consequently, the Original Application is declared to be meritless and the same is dismissed as such. No costs.
Digitally (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
signed by
MAMTA
MEMBER (J)
WADHWA
Dated: 11.08.2025
„mw‟