THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.24678 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Heard both the counsel. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (“for short “the Tribunal”), in O.A.No.70 of 2006, dated 27-11-2008, in allowing the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein questioning the action of the petitioners railway authorities in denying the consequential notional promotion, consequent upon the removal order having been set aside, this writ petition is filed by the railway authorities. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent herein was joined as Primary School Teacher in the Railway Mixed High School, Bitragunta, Nellore District, on 15-02-1967. Thereafter, he was promoted as Graduate Assistant in the said School with effect from 21-10-1975 and was regularized to the post of Graduate Assistant with effect from 03-09-1976. While the 1st respondent was working as Graduate Assistant in the Railway Mixed High School, Bitragunta, Nellore District, he was issued charge memo, dated 18-10-1985, under Rule 11 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, proposing to impose minor penalty. But, however, the said charge memo was cancelled and a fresh charge memo was issued on 25-04-1986 under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeals) Rules, 1968, proposing to impose major penalty. After completion of enquiry proceedings, the disciplinary authority i.e., the 3rd petitioner herein issued proceedings, dated 03-12-1986, against the 1st respondent imposing penalty of removal from service and the said removal order, as confirmed by the appellate authority, was questioned before the Tribunal in O.A.No.428 of 1987. Initially, the said O.A. was dismissed on 07-08-1987. Later, the 1st respondent filed Review Application No.31 of 1987 before the Tribunal seeking to review the order, dated 07-08-1987, made in O.A.No.428 of 1987. The Tribunal reviewed its order passed in O.A.No.428 of 1987 and allowed the said O.A. by order, dated 29-02-1988, setting aside the removal order, dated 03-12-1986, which was also confirmed by the Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal by its order, dated 28-02-1988 in R.A.No.31 of 1987 in O.A.No.428 of 1987, allowed the O.A. setting aside the removal order, dated 03-12-1986, passed by the 3rd petitioner herein, on the ground that authority, which passed the removal order, had no jurisdiction to pass such orders. The Tribunal, while setting aside the removal order, did not leave it open to the Railway authorities to pass appropriate orders. The said order of the Tribunal was questioned by the Railway authorities before the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court having granted leave, declined to grant stay. Therefore, the 1st respondent was reinstated into service on 01- 11-1988. Ultimately, the Supreme Court by its order, dated 30-03-1995, dismissed Civil Appeal No.175 of 1989. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:- “Even though the conduct of the respondent is reprehensibly yet the Tribunal having interfered on a technical ground that he was dismissed from the service by the Authority who was not the Disciplinary Authority, it is not expedient to decide this appeal on merits at this distance of time when no interim order was granted by this Court and the respondent is working now for more than five years.” Thereafter, the 1st petitioner again passed the order, dated 26- 02-1996, removing the 1st respondent from service. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed O.A.No.849 of 1997 before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed. Questioning the same, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.8983 of 1998 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 22-11-2002, allowed the writ petition, in view of the earlier orders of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the Supreme Court, setting aside the order of the Tribunal, order of removal, dated 26-02-1996 and the order in appeal, dated 23-05-1987. Further, the petitioners railway authorities were directed to give full consequential benefits to the 1st respondent and treat his retirement as normal retirement without relevance to the dismissal order passed earlier. Thus, the undisputed facts are that the earlier removal order was set aside by the Tribunal and the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court and the second dismissal order was also set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8983 of 1998, dated 22-11-2002, and the said order of this court has attained finality since the Railway authorities have not chosen to question the said order. A perusal of the operative portion of the Division Bench judgment goes to show that since the removal order was set aside, the 1st respondent was reinstated into service during the adjudication of the S.L.P itself and the second removal order was also set aside. Therefore, the 1st respondent is entitled for all consequential benefits, but the Railway authorities have not chosen to give consequential notional promotion except paying salaries for the post, which he was holding prior to the removal order. The 1st respondent attained the age of superannuation on 30-11-2002. As per the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this court, the 1st respondent shall be deemed to have been retired in the normal course with all consequential benefits. We are of the opinion that the consequential benefits mean and include a regular promotion, which the 1st respondent is due and entitled besides monetary and attendant benefits. As per the judgment of this court, there was no necessity for the 1st respondent to ventilate his grievance by moving a fresh O.A., but as the claim for notional promotion was rejected by the 2nd petitioner vide order, dated 13-09-2004, on the ground that as per the Railway Board’s instructions in Circular RBE No.126/97, dated 01-10-1997, the employees, whose promotions are withheld on account of pendency of the disciplinary/judicial proceedings and who have been subsequently exonerated, are entitled for notional promotion on par with the juniors. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed O.A.No.70 of 2005 questioning the said rejection order. The Tribunal vide its order, dated 27-11-2008, allowed the said O.A. setting aside the rejection order, dated 13-09-2004, directing the petitioners herein to consider the case of the 1st respondent for notional promotion to the post of Head Master (Gazetted)/Junior Lecturer and further eligible promotions, if any, on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the Railway Boards Circular, dated 01-10-1997, the persons, who have been exonerated the charges in the judicial proceedings are only entitled for notional promotions and the arrears of pay etc. and the said circular has no nexus to the facts of the case, as there was no exoneration of any of the charges by the disciplinary authority. Any disciplinary proceedings are meant for the purpose of imposing minor or major penalty. In the instant case, the enquiry was conducted and the removal order was passed. When the removal order itself has been set aside by the Tribunal, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent has suffered any punishment, pursuant to the charges framed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the charges are subsisting. If there are no charges pending against the 1st respondent and his removal order itself was set aside, we are of the opinion that the 1st respondent is entitled for all consequential benefits. Admittedly, the earlier removal order was set aside by the Tribunal and the same was upheld by the Supreme Court and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to pass any fresh orders on the same set of charges. Therefore, the second removal order passed by the competent authority was rightly set aside by this court, as it was in the teeth of the order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also noticed that the 1st respondent was working for the last five years and the normal working and normal incidents of service including promotion and retirement in the usual course were disrupted by the petitioners by passing the second removal order and the consequence of setting aside the second removal order by this court, automatically, includes all other benefits. The Railway authorities should have implemented the order of this court in its’ letter and spirit. Therefore, we do not see any justification on the part of the petitioners in denying the notional promotion to the 1st respondent and the Tribunal has rightly allowed the said application filed by the 1st respondent. Further, the impugned order is fully in consonance with the Division Bench judgment of this court. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 21-01-2010 Prv