ups_00518 — A Government servant, in this case a Railway employee, who was punished by removing him from service by the Disciplinary Authority and reinstated by the Appellate Authority in the lowest of the cadre forfeiting his past service is not borne by Disciplinary Rules of the Railways which do not talk of forfeiture of the past services of the reinstated employee reducing his rank. In this case, the Applicant posted as Gangman in the initial grade by the Appellate Authority on review of his punishment

UPS

A Government servant, in this case a Railway employee, who was punished by removing him from service by the Disciplinary Authority and reinstated by the Appellate Authority in the lowest of the cadre forfeiting his past service is not borne by Disciplinary Rules of the Railways which do not talk of forfeiture of the past services of the reinstated employee reducing his rank. In this case, the Applicant posted as Gangman in the initial grade by the Appellate Authority on review of his punishment of removal from service is entitled to count his past services from the date of his entry into service for the purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits — Case ruling: The Court in Shri Baliram Gangaram More v. General Manager, Central Railway and another, ruled that an employee whose past service was forfeited upon reinstatement should not have their ... — Facts: The Applicant, herein, who joined the Railway service as Gangman in Bhusawal Division of Central Railway, was charge-sheeted and following the extant rules, he was removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. On his appeal, the Appellate Authority reinstated him as a fresher in service in the initial grade and was allowed to join as Gangman in the initial grade of Gangman with effect from 11-6-1989. He retired from service on 31-7-2000. As he did not possess the requisite service for pension due to his entry as Gangman in the initial grade of Gangman with effect from 11-6-1989, he was not getting the pension. Even though, he did not protest against the punishment till he retired, he now filed this OA belatedly for treating him as reinstated in service in the initial grade of Gangman without forfeiture of his past service earlier to 11-6-1989 whereby his full service is to be counted for pension and other pensionary benefits. Mainly, he resisted the order of forfeiture of his service from his initial appointment up to his date of reinstatement on 11-6-1989 on the ground that Railways Servant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, there is no provision to give a fresh appointment to employee after quashing and setting aside of the initial punishment order of removal from service. Rule 22 of RS ( D & A) Rules, 1968 provides that the Appellate Authority can confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside penalty. In this case, the Appellate Authority had exceeded his jurisdiction. Along with his application, the Applicant filed an M.A. for condonation of delay in filing this OA. Respondents filed the reply resisting the claim of the Applicant on various grounds. Applicant also filed a rejoinder substantiating his claim and quoting references of the CAT and Apex Court judgments. The Tribunal considered the case. The Tribunal proved the question of correctness of the order of Appellate Authority directing reinstatement of the Applicant as fresh entrant in the initial grade thereby forfeiting his past services as Gangman from 26-6-1962 to 9-12-1987 when he was reinstated℃ As regards, the maintainability of the case, the Tribunal went into the case from its origin and concluded that payment of pension being a continuous cause of action, the question of delay does not arise and hence the filing of this OA is permitted. Thereafter, the question of permissibility of forfeiture of his past service before reinstatement was considered. Rule 6 of the D & A Rules of the Railway prescribes the minor and major penalties provided for in the Railways. Penalties under that Rule is reproduced verbatim. In those rules, no major penalty in the form of appointment as a fresh entrant on proof of charge is prescribed. It only provides for reduction in his post which the Appellate Authority took as fresh entrant. In the case of a judgment of CAT / Jabalpur in P.C. Pandey v. Union of India [ 1996 (33) ATC-1 ], it was held by the Tribunal that the past services of the Applicant before taking him back even if it is termed as fresh entrant is to be counted for pensionary benefits. Para. 3 of that judgment is reproduced for clarity and the reasons to state so. The Appellate Authority even though modified the punishment of Disciplinary Authority to that of reinstatement in the initial grade with forfeiture of past service from entrance to reinstatement it was not accepted and held.

UPS

A Government servant, in this case a Railway employee, who was punished by removing him from service by the Disciplinary Authority and reinstated by the Appellate Authority in the lowest of the cadre forfeiting his past service is not borne by Disciplinary Rules of the Railways which do not talk of forfeiture of the past services of the reinstated employee reducing his rank. In this case, the Applicant posted as Gangman in the initial grade by the Appellate Authority on review of his punishment of removal from service is entitled to count his past services from the date of his entry into service for the purpose of pension and other pensionary benefits — Case ruling: The Court in Shri Baliram Gangaram More v. General Manager, Central Railway and another, ruled that an employee whose past service was forfeited upon reinstatement should not have their ... — Facts: The Applicant, herein, who joined the Railway service as Gangman in Bhusawal Division of Central Railway, was charge-sheeted and following the extant rules, he was removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. On his appeal, the Appellate Authority reinstated him as a fresher in service in the initial grade and was allowed to join as Gangman in the initial grade of Gangman with effect from 11-6-1989. He retired from service on 31-7-2000. As he did not possess the requisite service for pension due to his entry as Gangman in the initial grade of Gangman with effect from 11-6-1989, he was not getting the pension. Even though, he did not protest against the punishment till he retired, he now filed this OA belatedly for treating him as reinstated in service in the initial grade of Gangman without forfeiture of his past service earlier to 11-6-1989 whereby his full service is to be counted for pension and other pensionary benefits. Mainly, he resisted the order of forfeiture of his service from his initial appointment up to his date of reinstatement on 11-6-1989 on the ground that Railways Servant ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, there is no provision to give a fresh appointment to employee after quashing and setting aside of the initial punishment order of removal from service. Rule 22 of RS ( D & A) Rules, 1968 provides that the Appellate Authority can confirm, enhance, reduce or set aside penalty. In this case, the Appellate Authority had exceeded his jurisdiction. Along with his application, the Applicant filed an M.A. for condonation of delay in filing this OA. Respondents filed the reply resisting the claim of the Applicant on various grounds. Applicant also filed a rejoinder substantiating his claim and quoting references of the CAT and Apex Court judgments. The Tribunal considered the case. The Tribunal proved the question of correctness of the order of Appellate Authority directing reinstatement of the Applicant as fresh entrant in the initial grade thereby forfeiting his past services as Gangman from 26-6-1962 to 9-12-1987 when he was reinstated℃ As regards, the maintainability of the case, the Tribunal went into the case from its origin and concluded that payment of pension being a continuous cause of action, the question of delay does not arise and hence the filing of this OA is permitted. Thereafter, the question of permissibility of forfeiture of his past service before reinstatement was considered. Rule 6 of the D & A Rules of the Railway prescribes the minor and major penalties provided for in the Railways. Penalties under that Rule is reproduced verbatim. In those rules, no major penalty in the form of appointment as a fresh entrant on proof of charge is prescribed. It only provides for reduction in his post which the Appellate Authority took as fresh entrant. In the case of a judgment of CAT / Jabalpur in P.C. Pandey v. Union of India [ 1996 (33) ATC-1 ], it was held by the Tribunal that the past services of the Applicant before taking him back even if it is termed as fresh entrant is to be counted for pensionary benefits. Para. 3 of that judgment is reproduced for clarity and the reasons to state so. The Appellate Authority even though modified the punishment of Disciplinary Authority to that of reinstatement in the initial grade with forfeiture of past service from entrance to reinstatement it was not accepted and held.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text