it2025_00917 — The Applicant, a Catering Supervisor punished for discrepancies in store items and cash was finally restored to the post of Catering Inspector in PB ₹ 9,300-34,800 plus GP of ₹ 4,200 and pay fixed at ₹ 10,420 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 with the effect of postponing of future increments, losing seniority and treating the period from the date of compulsory retirement (initially awarded) to the date of rejoining as dies non. Hence the OA is filed challenging the above pun

IT Rules

The Applicant, a Catering Supervisor punished for discrepancies in store items and cash was finally restored to the post of Catering Inspector in PB ₹ 9,300-34,800 plus GP of ₹ 4,200 and pay fixed at ₹ 10,420 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 with the effect of postponing of future increments, losing seniority and treating the period from the date of compulsory retirement (initially awarded) to the date of rejoining as dies non. Hence the OA is filed challenging the above punishment — The context provided is about an appeal filed by a Catering Supervisor named Shri B. Gopinath, challenging his punishment due to discrepancies in store items and cash while working for the Railways. ... — Facts: Applicant, Catering Supervisor of Railways was issued with a major penalty charge-sheet, dated 29-8-2000 as some discrepancies were found in store items and cash. He was punished with compulsory retirement. On challenging in Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 903 of 2004 the order was set aside. Respondents appealed against that order in High Court. High Court in its Order, dated 4-2-2009 agreed with the Tribunal and remanded the matter to Disciplinary Authority for re-consideration who reduced the punishment to that of reduction to the lower grade of Catering Inspector, Grade-III with Grade Pay of ₹ 2,000 with recurring effect till such time he is found suitable for further promotion by the Competent Authority. On appeal, the punishment was modified (A/10) and restored the Applicant to the post of Catering Inspector in PB ₹ 9,300-34,800 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 and fixed the pay at ₹ 10,420 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 with the effect of postponing of future increments, losing seniority and treating the period when he was away from duty as dies non. Applicant's revision petition was rejected. Hence this OA is filed challenging the punishment. On challenge before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held. "The Applicant's contention is that the Appellate Authority had not passed the order in its true spirit as directed by Hon'ble High Court and bent upon to punish him without application of mind and without discussing the points raised in the appeal. We are in agreement with this contention of the Applicant that Respondent should have discussed the legal / rule position as per direction of Hon'ble High Court instead of relying upon the Enquiry Report. The another point raised is that multiple punishments were awarded to the Applicant by way of effect in postponing the future increments without any time period, will not regain original seniority, will not be given duty in any catering units and posted in non-cash areas only and that the period from the date of compulsory retirement to that of rejoining is to be treated as dies non is unheard, rather it is too harsh. This Tribunal is aware of the legal position regarding interference in departmental proceedings case which has a very limited scope. Moreover, as on the date of filing of the OA on 28-12-2016, the Applicant has shown his age as 57 years which means that he has retired from service during the pendency of the OA. Therefore, since the punishment being harsh and as the Applicant has retired from service during the pendency of the OA, we feel that ends of justice would be met is we remit the case back to the Appellate Authority in order to consider the quantum of punishment imposed on the Applicant on the basis of the observations made above. Ordered accordingly".

IT Rules

The Applicant, a Catering Supervisor punished for discrepancies in store items and cash was finally restored to the post of Catering Inspector in PB ₹ 9,300-34,800 plus GP of ₹ 4,200 and pay fixed at ₹ 10,420 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 with the effect of postponing of future increments, losing seniority and treating the period from the date of compulsory retirement (initially awarded) to the date of rejoining as dies non. Hence the OA is filed challenging the above punishment — The context provided is about an appeal filed by a Catering Supervisor named Shri B. Gopinath, challenging his punishment due to discrepancies in store items and cash while working for the Railways. ... — Facts: Applicant, Catering Supervisor of Railways was issued with a major penalty charge-sheet, dated 29-8-2000 as some discrepancies were found in store items and cash. He was punished with compulsory retirement. On challenging in Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 903 of 2004 the order was set aside. Respondents appealed against that order in High Court. High Court in its Order, dated 4-2-2009 agreed with the Tribunal and remanded the matter to Disciplinary Authority for re-consideration who reduced the punishment to that of reduction to the lower grade of Catering Inspector, Grade-III with Grade Pay of ₹ 2,000 with recurring effect till such time he is found suitable for further promotion by the Competent Authority. On appeal, the punishment was modified (A/10) and restored the Applicant to the post of Catering Inspector in PB ₹ 9,300-34,800 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 and fixed the pay at ₹ 10,420 plus Grade Pay of ₹ 4,200 with the effect of postponing of future increments, losing seniority and treating the period when he was away from duty as dies non. Applicant's revision petition was rejected. Hence this OA is filed challenging the punishment. On challenge before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held. "The Applicant's contention is that the Appellate Authority had not passed the order in its true spirit as directed by Hon'ble High Court and bent upon to punish him without application of mind and without discussing the points raised in the appeal. We are in agreement with this contention of the Applicant that Respondent should have discussed the legal / rule position as per direction of Hon'ble High Court instead of relying upon the Enquiry Report. The another point raised is that multiple punishments were awarded to the Applicant by way of effect in postponing the future increments without any time period, will not regain original seniority, will not be given duty in any catering units and posted in non-cash areas only and that the period from the date of compulsory retirement to that of rejoining is to be treated as dies non is unheard, rather it is too harsh. This Tribunal is aware of the legal position regarding interference in departmental proceedings case which has a very limited scope. Moreover, as on the date of filing of the OA on 28-12-2016, the Applicant has shown his age as 57 years which means that he has retired from service during the pendency of the OA. Therefore, since the punishment being harsh and as the Applicant has retired from service during the pendency of the OA, we feel that ends of justice would be met is we remit the case back to the Appellate Authority in order to consider the quantum of punishment imposed on the Applicant on the basis of the observations made above. Ordered accordingly".

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text