Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
S C Agrawal vs General Manager N C Rly on 11 February, 2026
1 (Reserved on 07.01.2026) Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the 11th day of February, 2026 HON'BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J. HON'BLE MS. MANJU PANDEY, MEMBER-A. Original Application No. 435 of 2017 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985) Suresh Chandra Agrawal S/o Late Ram Bharose Agrawal Aged about 63 years, R/o 264, Mission Compound, Sipri Bazar Jhansi (District Jhansi).
........... Applicant.
By Advocate: Mr. S.M. Ali.
Versus (1) Union of India through General Manager Head Quarter North Central Railway Subedarganj Allahabad.
(2) Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway Jhansi.
(3) Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), North Central Railway Jhansi.
........... Respondents.
By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Ojha.
Order By Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial) The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking redressal of his grievances arising out of the impugned order dated 11.08.2016, whereby his claim for grant of full salary, promotions and other consequential service benefits for the period of suspension, removal and reinstatement has been rejected. The applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
"(i) To quash the impugned order dated 11-8-2016 (Annexure-A-1).
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 2
(ii) To pay the full salary along with 12% interest for the period removal to reinstated in service in the light of ADRM order dated 21-5-2008.
(iii) To release the all promotion for the period 1994 to 2007 in the light of office order dated 28-01-2013 with all other Consequential benefits and re-fix the retiral dues and re- fix the pension of the applicant after consider the all facts of the case.
(iv) Award the cost of the Original Application in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Suresh Chandra Agrawal, was initially appointed as a Group-D employee in the Engineering Department of North Central Railway, Jhansi on 13.06.1975 and was subsequently promoted to Group-C and later to the post of Depot Store Keeper and Senior Clerk. While in service, he was implicated in a criminal case under Section 3 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act, pursuant to which he was placed under suspension and was ultimately removed from service vide order dated 16.10.2003, solely on the basis of conviction. However, the applicant was acquitted by the appellate criminal court vide judgment dated 11.08.2006, leading to his reinstatement in service on 11.03.2007. The intervening period from removal till reinstatement was sanctioned as extraordinary leave under Para 1344 of IREC-II. Although the charge-sheet issued departmentally was later dropped unconditionally in 2013 and the applicant retired from service on 30.06.2014, the respondents granted him only partial MACP arrears at a lower grade pay and denied full salary, promotions, seniority, ACP/MACP benefits and other consequential service and retiral benefits for the intervening period, compelling the applicant to approach this Tribunal seeking full consequential benefits.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 3
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was removed from service solely on the basis of conviction without holding any departmental inquiry and that after his acquittal by the appellate criminal court, followed by unconditional dropping of the departmental charge-sheet, the applicant stood fully exonerated. It was argued that, therefore, the intervening period from the date of removal till reinstatement ought to have been treated as duty for all intents and purposes. Learned counsel further submitted that despite reinstatement and sanction of extraordinary leave under Para 1344 of IREC-II, the respondents failed to grant full salary, seniority, promotions, ACP/MACP benefits and other consequential service and retiral benefits. It was further contended that grant of only partial MACP arrears at a lower grade pay is arbitrary and contrary to statutory rules, and the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 deserves to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Original Application and submitted that the applicant was rightly removed from service upon his conviction under Section 3 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act and was not entitled to any benefits for the intervening period between removal and reinstatement. It was contended that after reinstatement pursuant to acquittal, the competent authority consciously decided to regulate the intervening period as extraordinary leave in terms of applicable rules, which does not confer any right upon the applicant to claim full pay, allowances or promotional benefits. Learned counsel further submitted that all admissible benefits, including MACP up-gradation w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and arrears amounting to Rs. 2,28,124/-, have SHAKUNTALA VERMA 4 already been paid and that the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, in the counter affidavit filed on 20.09.2017, reiterated that the applicant was removed strictly in accordance with rules after his conviction and that the administration acted bona fide and within its statutory powers. It was further submitted that upon acquittal, the applicant was reinstated and the competent authority, in exercise of discretion under the relevant Railway Establishment Rules, treated the intervening period as extraordinary leave. It was contended that the applicant was not fully exonerated on merits so as to claim full pay and consequential benefits and that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that no rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the counter affidavit and that the applicant has relied upon the pleadings made in the Original Application along with the documents annexed therewith. It was contended that the issues arise from admitted facts on record and the impugned action is apparent from the documents already filed. However, upon careful consideration of the pleadings and annexures relied upon by the applicant, this Tribunal finds that the same do not substantiate the reliefs claimed nor disclose any infirmity in the impugned order. The documents merely reflect the sequence of events already considered by the competent authority and do not establish any legal entitlement to the consequential benefits sought.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 5
7. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by Mr. S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents, and have carefully perused the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record.
8. On a careful scrutiny of the material available on record, it is seen that apart from relying upon the judgment of acquittal, the applicant has also placed reliance upon an earlier decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 301 of 2016 to contend that his case is covered by the said decision and that similar relief ought to be extended to him. The reliance placed by the applicant is on the operative portion of the said order, which is reproduced below:-
"5. In view of the prayer made by counsel for the applicant, we are of the view that no purpose will be served to keep this OA pending, and the matter can be resolved by the decision on the representation moved by the applicant in this regard. However, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the OA is disposed of with the direction that applicant will submit a detailed representation before the respondent No.2 (Division Railway Manager, N.C.R. Jhansi) within three weeks along with certified copy of this order and the respondent No.2 is directed to decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of representation and communicate the decision to the applicant in writing. No costs."
9. It is seen from the record that the impugned order dated 11.08.2006 passed by the competent authority forms the basis of regulation of the applicant's service matters after his conviction and subsequent acquittal. A perusal of the said impugned order reveals the factual background relating to the applicant's criminal prosecution, conviction, removal from service, acquittal by the appellate criminal court, reinstatement in service and regulation of the intervening SHAKUNTALA VERMA 6 period. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 11.08.2006, as relied upon by the respondents, is reproduced below:-
".................................
नमाण वभाग म ह जब आप व र. डपो टोर क पर के पद पर कायरत थे तब रे ल सुर ा बल वारा दनाक 01.5.1994 को आपके व ध अपराध करण सं या 10/1994 के अंतगत बंद बनाकर जेल भेजा गया था व उसी करण म दनांक 27.5.2003 को माननीय अपर मु य या यक मिज े ट (म.रे .) झांसी वारा आपको दो वष का स म कारावास म 2000/- पये से दि डत कया गया था। यायालय वारा दये गये दं ड के प चात रे ल कमचार अनुशासन एवं अपील नयम 1968 के नयम 14(1) के अ तगत कायवाह करते हुये प सं या JHS/W/E/DAR/SCA/SrC/MKP दनांक 16.10.2003 वारा तुर त भाव से सेवा से ब रत कया गया।
माननीय अपर मु य या यक मिज े ट (म.रे .) झॉसी के नणय दनांक 27.5.2003 के व ध आपके वारा माननीय अपर िजला एवं स यायाधीश झॉसी को क गयी अपील म पा रत नणय िजसम आपको दोष मु त कया गया व उसी आधार पर इस कायालय के प सं या JHS/W/E/DAR/SCA/SrC/MKP दनांक 09.02.2007 के वारा यथावत काय पर लया गया तथा आपको व र. ल पक वे.मा. 4500-7000 के व र. ख ड अ भ. (पीवे) च कूट धाम कव के अधीन नयुि त द गयी तथा 16.10.2003 से दनांक नाक 09.02.2007 तक क बीच क अव ध को असाधारण छु ट म माना गया।
आपके व ध नमाण वभाग म ह बड़ी शाि त हेतु आरोप प
एस.एफ.-5 प सं JHS/C/STF/CONF/11/396 दनांक 29.9.1996 जार
क गयी थी जो आप पर लि बत रह और आपक सेवा नवृ के समय आपके व ध सहानुभू तपूण नणय लेते हुये आपके हत को यान म रखते हुये स म अ धकार वारा उ त मानक प 5 ॉप कया गया।
आपके व ध SF-5 प सं JHS/C/STF/CONF/11/396 दनांक 29.09.1996 आपक सेवा नवृ तक लि बत रह इसके साथ साथ वष 1994 से 2007 तक आपके व ध आपरा धक करण चलता रहा िजस कारण आप पदो न त से वं चत रहे ।
..............................."
10. From the facts emerging from the record, it is seen that the applicant was sent to judicial custody on 01.05.1994 by SHAKUNTALA VERMA 7 the RPF in connection with Case Crime No. 10 of 1994 and remained in jail from 02.05.1994 to 31.05.1994, pursuant to which he was placed under suspension. The order of suspension was revoked on 25.09.1996 and the applicant was reinstated in service. Subsequently, the applicant was convicted under Section 3 of the R.P. (U.P.) Act vide judgment dated 27.05.2003 and, in consequence thereof, he was removed from service on 16.10.2003 under Rule 14(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968.
11. The applicant preferred an appeal against the conviction, which was allowed by the appellate criminal court, and he was acquitted vide judgment dated 11.08.2006. Consequent upon such acquittal, the applicant was reinstated in service vide order dated 09.02.2007 in the same grade pay, with a specific direction that the intervening period would be regulated in accordance with Para 1344 of IREC-II. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was actually posted and joined duties on 11.03.2007. The intervening period from the date of removal i.e. 16.10.2003 till the date of actual posting i.e. 11.03.2007 was thereafter regulated separately, as reflected from the order dated 21.05.2008.
12. From a cumulative consideration of the facts on record and the applicable rules, it is evident that the applicant cannot be treated as having remained in continuous service during the period of suspension, conviction and removal. The period from the date of suspension in the year 1994 till the date of acquittal on 11.08.2006 cannot, therefore, be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pay, promotion, MACP or other consequential benefits and is liable to be treated as extraordinary leave / leave without pay.
SHAKUNTALA VERMA 8
13. In this regard, it is well settled that acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle an employee to full back wages or consequential service benefits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121 has held that such entitlement depends upon the nature of acquittal and the manner in which the intervening period is regulated under the applicable service rules. Applying the said principle, the applicant is not entitled to any service or promotional benefits for the period prior to his acquittal, however, he is entitled to consideration of admissible service benefits from the date of acquittal, strictly in accordance with rules.
14. However, a distinction is required to be drawn with respect to the period subsequent to the acquittal of the applicant. From the date of acquittal i.e. 11.08.2006 till the date of actual posting on 11.03.2007, the applicant stood exonerated in the criminal proceedings and was reinstated in service. To that limited extent, the period from the date of acquittal till the date of actual posting is required to be considered by the respondents for regulating admissible service benefits strictly in accordance with rules. Beyond the said limited period, the applicant is not entitled to any further relief in respect of pay, promotion, MACP or other consequential benefits.
15. Accordingly, the applicant is not entitled to any benefit whatsoever for the period from 10.02.1994 till 11.08.2006, including the period of suspension, conviction and removal, which shall continue to be treated as extraordinary leave/ leave without pay. However, only the limited period from 11.08.2006 till 11.03.2007 shall be considered by the SHAKUNTALA VERMA 9 respondents/competent authority for the purpose of regulating admissible service benefits, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules. The impugned order dated 11.08.2006 shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent, and the respondents/competent authority are directed to undertake such consideration and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and communicate the same forthwith to the applicant.
16. Accordingly, the Original Application is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.
17. All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Shakuntala/
SHAKUNTALA VERMA