D S Rao vs M/o Railways
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
A 203/602/2019
O
1
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(Hybrid Mode)
Original Application No.203/602/2019
th
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 13 day of October, 2026
HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
D.S. Rao, son of Shri D. Atchanna, aged about 43 years, presently posted as
Senior ALP, CTCC/VSKP, Waltair Division, East Coast Railway,
Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
-Applicant
(By Advocate – Shri Amrito Das through VC)
V e r s u s
1. South East Central Railways through its General Manager, Headquarter,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495004.
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Central Railways,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495004.
3. Chief Personnel Officer, South Eastern Central Railways, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh – 495004.
4. Divisional Personnel Officer II, South Eastern Central Railways,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495004.
- Respondents
(By Advocate – Shri Ramakant Mishra through VC)
(Date of reserving order : 08.09.2026)
Page 1 of 10
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:32:55
+05'30'
MISHRA
A 203/602/2019
O
2
O R D E R
By Mallika Arya, AM.-
The applicant is aggrieved by order dated 14.06.2018 (Annexure A-1),
whereby his representation for payment of full back-wages for the period
from 29.08.2005 till 15.12.2009 has been rejected by the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was placed under
suspension on 31.08.2005 due to an incident which took place on
29.08.2005. He was thereafter issued a major penalty chargesheet on
17.10.2005. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the applicant was
removed from service vide order dated 10.07.2006 (Annexure A-3).
However, on appeal, the said punishment was modified to that of “reversion
from the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 to the initial scale of 3050-4590/- for a
period of five years and after completion of the period, the pay was to be
fixed at Rs.5000/- with loss of seniority.” It was also ordered that the
intervening period between removal and reinstatement shall be treated as
‘dies non’. The applicant was reinstated back in service on 05.12.2007.
2.1 The applicant preferred an Original Application No.128/2008 before
this Tribunal. Vide order dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure A-5), this Tribunal
set aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authority.
Page 2 of 10
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:32:55
+05'30'
MISHRA
A 203/602/2019
O
3
The applicant submits that though vide order dated 16.12.2009, the
authorities reinstated him in service, however, the arrears of pay have not
been paid to him. Subsequently, a fresh charge sheet was issued to the
applicant on 18.02.2010 (Annexure A-7) on the same set of charges.
2.2 After conducting a full-fledged enquiry, the applicant was removed
from service vide order dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure A-8). The punishment
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was also confirmed by the Appellate
Authority and thereafter by the Revisionary Authority. Thereafter the
applicant preferred an Original Application No.617/2012 before this
Tribunal. Vide orders dated 05.02.2014, his Original Application was
allowed with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to pass fresh
punishment order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant.
Accordingly, a fresh order of punishment was passed on 17.04.2014
(Annexure A-12), whereby the applicant was reverted to a lower post of
LPS-II in PB 5200-20200 with GP Rs.2400/- for a period of five years with
cumulative effect and the intervening period between the date of removal
from service and reinstatement (01.11.2010 to 05.02.2014) was directed to
be treated as ‘dies non’. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Chief
Operations Manager, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Vide orders dated 05.12.2014
Page 3 of 10
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:32:55
+05'30'
MISHRA
A 203/602/2019
O
4
(Annexure A-14), the Appellate Authority modified the punishment by
reducing the period of punishment from 5 years to 3 years. However, the
rest of the conditions imposed in the punishment order remained the same.
2.3 It is the case of the applicant that he was removed from service twice
on the same set of allegations. Firstly, he was reinstated in departmental
appeal and thereafter the punishment was set aside by this Tribunal. Thus,
the applicant is entitled for the payment of full back wages for the period
29.08.2005 to 21.12.2007, when he was not in service. Further, for the
period between 21.12.2007 to 15.12.2009, the applicant was posted as
Assistant Loco Pilot though he was entitled to work as Loco Pilot (Goods).
As such, he is entitled for payment of difference of pay for the said period.
He preferred a representation dated 02.02.2015 (Annexure A-15) claiming
grant of arrears of pay for the said period. However, vide order dated
18.12.2017 (Annexure A-16), his representation was rejected by the
respondents.
2.4 The applicant again preferred an Original Application No.187/2018
before this Tribunal. Vide orders dated 23.02.2018 (Annexure A-17), the
Original Application was disposed with the direction to the respondents to
Page 4 of 10
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:32:55
+05'30'
MISHRA
A 203/602/2019
O
5
pass a reasoned and speaking order on applicant’s representation dated
02.02.2015. Vide the impugned order dated 14.06.2018 (Annexure A-1), the
claim of the applicant with respect to grant of arrears of pay for the period
between 29.08.2005 to 27.04.2006 and difference of pay for the period
10.07.2006 to 16.12.2009 has been rejected by the respondents.
3. The applicant submits that once an adverse order against the applicant
gets quashed, he is entitled for continuity of service for the entire period and
also for payment of full back wages for the period from 29.08.2005 to
21.12.2007. Similarly, for the period between 21.12.2007 to 15.12.2009, he
was posted as APL though he was entitled to work as Loco Pilot (Goods).
Therefore, he was entitled for payment of difference of pay for the said
period. On a fresh departmental enquiry, the applicant was removed from
service on 01.11.2010. However, vide order dated 05.02.2014, this Tribunal
set aside the punishment order and thereafter vide the order dated
17.04.2014, the applicant was given a punishment of reversion to the post of
LPS-II for a period of five years with cumulative effect. The backwages
from the date of removal, i.e. 01.11.2010 till the date of joining, i.e.
01.05.2014 was treated as ‘no work no pay’ and as ‘dies non’ as well. Since
the order of punishment is a fresh order of punishment, which has to relate
Page 5 of 10
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:32:55
+05'30'
MISHRA
A 203/602/2019
O
6
from the date of issuance of the charge sheet pursuant to which he was
removed from service, the applicant is entitled to payment of backwages for
the period when he was not in service.
4. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the main relief claimed
by the applicant is for grant of payment of full back wages for the period
29.05.2005 till 21.12.2007. He is seeking full back wages for the period
from 21.12.2007 to 15.12.2009 for the post of Loco Pilot (Goods).
However, he is not entitled for back wages on the principles of ‘no work no
pay’. This has been clarified to him by way of reasoned and speaking order
dated 14.06.2018 (Annexure A-1).
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings
and the documents available on record.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that once the earlier
orders of removal and punishment were quashed by this Tribunal, the
applicant stood restored to the same position. According to him, the
applicant is therefore entitled to the benefit of continuity of service with full
back wages for the period from 29.08.2005 to 21.12.2007. It has been
further submitted that, during the period 21.12.2007 to 15.12.2009, the
Page 6 of 10
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:32:55
+05'30'
MISHRA
A 203/602/2019
O
7
applicant was made to work as Assistant Loco Pilot despite being eligible to
work as Loco Pilot (Goods). Therefore, he is entitled to the difference of
pay in respect of this post. It has also been argued that since the subsequent
punishment order dated 17.04.2014 was a fresh order, the same could not be
applied retrospectively so as to deprive the applicant of his salary for the
earlier period.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has contended
7.
that the applicant has no automatic right to back wages merely because an
earlier punishment order has been set aside. According to him, the
subsequent departmental proceedings have established the charges against
the applicant and this has ultimately resulted in a punishment of reversion.
8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record.
9. The first and foremost question for determination is whether setting
aside of an earlier punishment orders by this Tribunal automatically confers
a right upon the applicant to receive full back wages for the entire period
during which he remained out of service. The answer, in our considered
view, is in the negative.
Page 7 of 10
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:32:55
+05'30'
MISHRA
A 203/602/2019
O
8
10. The legal position has been recognised in service jurisprudence that
setting aside of a dismissal or removal does not, in every case, mechanically
result in an award of full back wages. It is a well settled law that the
question of back wages requires consideration of the circumstances of the
case and cannot be regarded as an automatic consequence of reinstatement.
In the present case, the order dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure A-5) passed by
this Tribunal in O.A. No.128/2008 did not record a finding that the
applicant was innocent of the underlying misconduct or that he stood fully
exonerated on merits. More importantly, the respondents thereafter initiated
disciplinary proceedings by issuing a fresh charge-sheet dated 18.02.2010.
These proceedings culminated in an order of removal dated 01.11.2010.
Although the punishment order was subsequently modified by this Tribunal
on 05.02.2014, the applicant has not been exonerated of the charges. On the
contrary, pursuant to the order dated 05.02.2014, ibid, the Disciplinary
Authority passed a fresh punishment order dated 17.04.2014 imposing a
penalty of reversion, which was subsequently modified only to the extent of
reducing the period of punishment. Thus, the ultimate position emerging
from the records is that the applicant has not been fully
Page 8 of 10
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:32:55
+05'30'
MISHRA
A 203/602/2019
O
9
exonerated on merits. The departmental proceedings have ultimately
resulted in imposition of a substantive penalty.
The applicant's contention that once an earlier punishment orders gets
11.
quashed, he automatically became entitled to all consequential monetary
benefits cannot be accepted. There is a well-recognised distinction between
setting aside an order of punishment on account of procedural/legal
infirmity and exoneration of the employee on merits. In the former
situation, reinstatement or restoration of service status does not necessarily
mean that the employee must be paid full salary for the period during which
he did not render service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of
judgments has observed that even where reinstatement and continuity of
service are granted, back wages may be separately considered and can be
denied depending upon the circumstances of the case. In appropriate cases,
continuity, seniority and notional service benefits can be protected without
directing payment of actual back wages. In the present case, the subsequent
disciplinary proceedings and the ultimate imposition of punishment makes
it impossible to hold that the applicant stood completely vindicated of the
allegations on merits. Therefore, the mere fact that the earlier punishment
orders were set aside cannot, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to full
Page 9 of 10
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:32:55
+05'30'
MISHRA
A 203/602/2019
O
10
back wages. Hence, there is no legal basis for directing payment of full back
wages merely because the earlier orders were quashed. Similarly, there is no
merit in the claim of the applicant to grant him the salary for the period
from 21.12.2007 to 15.12.2009 for the post of Loco Pilot (Goods) when he
has actually not performed the duties of Loco Pilot (Goods) due to currency
of the punishment order.
In the result, we do not find any merit in this Original Application.
12.
Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 10 of 10
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:32:55
+05'30'
MISHRA