Reinstatement after quashing a removal order does not create an automatic right to back wages.

The applicant, a former Railway Guard, was removed from service on 30.09.1991 for unauthorized absence of 310 days

His appeal was dismissed as time-barred in 1995, but on revision, the Revisional Authority quashed the removal on 06.03.1997 due to the non-supply of the inquiry report and remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority (DA)

The applicant was reinstated on 31.03.1997

Although the inquiry report was subsequently served in 1998, the proceedings were never formally concluded

In 2007, the applicant was compulsorily retired following fresh disciplinary proceedings for subsequent unauthorized absences

The applicant approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 959/2018 seeking service benefits for the period of his initial removal (1991–1997).

Pursuant to the Tribunal's direction to decide his representation, the respondents issued an undated impugned order (communicated in 2024) treating the 2055-day period (03.10.1991 to 21.05.1997) as Extraordinary Leave (EOL) without pay

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to full pay, allowances, and the counting of service for the period he was ousted from service due to a removal order that was later quashed on procedural grounds

2. Whether the administrative decision to treat the intervening period as Extraordinary Leave (EOL) suffers from arbitrariness or procedural infirmity

The Tribunal relied on the principle that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process, not the decision itself, per State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh (1989)

It further applied the limitations on interfering with disciplinary conclusions established in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2014)

Regarding service benefits, the Tribunal cited Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993), holding that relief following the non-supply of an inquiry report is not automatic

State of Kerala v. E. K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007), which clarified that "no work, no pay" is the general rule and back wages are not a matter of right

Statutory authority was drawn from Rule 32 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, regarding the grant and retrospective commutation of absence into EOL

The Tribunal found that the quashing of the original removal order in 1997 was based purely on a technicality—the non-supply of the inquiry report—rather than an exoneration on the merits of the unauthorized absence

Reviewing the applicant’s original Service Book, the Tribunal noted that the respondents had consciously decided to treat the 2055-day absence as EOL

Under Rule 32(6) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, the competent authority is empowered to retrospectively commute periods of absence into EOL

The Tribunal reasoned that since EOL only counts as qualifying service for pension under specific conditions (e.g., medical reasons or scientific studies), and the applicant met none of these, the period could not be counted for increments or pension

Applying the "no work, no pay" doctrine, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove the decision was arbitrary, as the respondents exercised their discretion within the statutory framework of leave rules

The court held that the respondents’ decision to treat the 2055-day period as Extraordinary Leave (EOL) was a valid exercise of administrative discretion under the CCS (Leave) Rules and did not warrant judicial interference

No order as to costs was made