IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.46 of 2009 Laxmi Kant Mishra s/o late Sonelal Mishra, Driver Goods under the Loco Foreman, Diesel Lobby, N.E. Railway, Darbhanga, resident in Rely. Qr. No.L/42 ‘F’, Railway Colony, Kathalbari, P.O. Lalbagh, District – Darbhanga, Bihar. ………… Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India through the General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur, now E.C. Railway, Hazipur (Bihar) 2. The Chief Personnel Officer (Admn.), N.E.Railway, Gorakhpur, (U.P.) now E.C. Railway, Hazipur, (Bihar) 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, N.E. Railway, Samastipur Division, Samastipur (Bihar) now E.C. Railway, Samastipur 4. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), N.E.Railway, Samastipur Division, Samastipur, now E.C. Railway, Samastipur …….. Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Mr. Amar Nath Jha, Advocates For the respondents: Mr. Sudhir Singh, Asst. SG. Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, JC to Asst.SG. ----------- 2 19-01-2009 This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25th May, 2007 passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA. No.576 of 2001, whereby the said application has been dismissed. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 27th September, 2007 passed by the Tribunal dismissing the review application. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that by order dated 28th January, 1985, - 2 - the petitioner was visited with penalty of removal from service. Against the order of removal, he preferred appeal and the appellate authority by order dated 27th September, 2007 set aside the order of removal and reduced punishment from removal to that of reduction from the post of Fireman to that of Engine Cleaner in the scale of pay of Rs.196/- 232. The appellate authority while setting aside the order of removal and reverting him to the lower post observed that he shall work on the reverted post for two years. In view of the appellate order, the petitioner joined as Cleaner on 5th October, 1985. He contended that the period of two years shall be counted from the date of his removal and not from his re- instatement and to that effect preferred a representation. The said prayer was not acceded to and thereafter he filed OA No.576 of 2001 , inter alia, contending that the period of punishment shall expire on 27th January, 1987, that is, on completion of two years from the date of removal. This submission did not find favour with the Tribunal and it held that the reduced penalty shall take effect from the date of re-instatement and for that purpose it relied on - 3 - Rule 8 of the Railway Servants (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The petitioner thereafter filed review application, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order. Mr. Jha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that two years period has to be counted from the date of the order of removal, that is, 28th January, 1985 and the Tribunal erred in holding that it shall be from the date of re-instatement. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was visited with penalty of removal from service and it is only after the said order was set aside and the punishment of removal from the service was reduced to that of reduction in rank for two years, the petitioner joined on 5th October, 1985. In view of Rule 8 of the Rules, in case of re-instatement the reduced penalty takes effect from the date of re-instatement. Hence, we are of the opinion that the penalty shall not come to an end on 27th January, 1987 as contended by the petitioner. Mr. Jha then submits that in the case of - 4 - certain persons, who have been inflicted with punishment by the disciplinary authority and have been re-instated in service by the order of the appellate authority, the period of punishment has been counted from the date the original punishment was inflicted, although in those cases the appellate authority has not passed the order reducing the penalty for a limited period. It does not seem that any such argument was advanced before the Tribunal. Even if we assume in favour of the petitioner that some persons have been wrongly given the benefit, the petitioner shall not be entitled for the same. We do not find any merit in the petition and it is dismissed in limine. Neyaz/- C.K Prasad, ACJ. S.K. Sharma, J.