THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2834 of 2000 Date:02nd September, 2011 Between: Bhuneshwar Tiwari ..... Petitioner AND 1. The Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad & Ors. .....Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2834 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed by Bhuneshwar Tiwari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad-1st respondent in ordering a de nova enquiry while postponing the monetary benefits payable vide proceeding Force Order No.204/99 (IX/P.227/153/B/Tiwari/SIPF), dated 11.11.1999, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Railway Protection Force Sub- Inspector (Executive) in the respondents’ Organization on 11.06.1992. Departmental enquiry came to be initiated against him for certain irregularities in effecting sale delivery of released steel girders. In the departmental enquiry, he was found guilty of the charges leveled against him. Disciplinary authority-the Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad-2nd respondent, imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner under proceeding dated 11.08.1999 (X/P/227/153/98/B.Tiwari, SIPF). The petitioner challenged the order of punishment by filing a departmental appeal before the Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, South Central Railway, Secunderabad-1st respondent. The appellate Authority set aside the order of punishment and ordered for de nova departmental enquiry while reinstating the petitioner into service under order, dated 11.11.1999. The action of the 1st respondent in ordering de nova enquiry while settting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement is assailed in this Writ Petition. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 23.02.2000. An interim direction came to be issued to the respondents to pay the monetary benefits payable to the petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition. 4. The respondents entered appearance and filed counter-affidavit resisting the prayer sought for by the petitioner. P.S.Rawal, Deputy Chief Security Commissioner, Headquarters, Railway Protection Force, Secunderabad, has sworn to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that there is no hard and fast rule that payment should be made immediately on his reinstatement. It is further stated in the counter- affidavit that the appellate Authority is competent to order for de nova enquiry while setting aside the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the petitioner. The appellate Authority is within his right to decide as to how to treat the intervening period from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of re-instatement on finalization of de nova enquiry. 5. Heard Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for the respondents. 6. Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appellate Authority having set aside the order of punishment of compulsory retirement, ought not have directed for de nova enquiry against the petitioner. He would further submit that once the petitioner is reinstated into service consequent on the punishment being set aside, the period from the date of order of compulsory retirement to the date of re-instatement is to be treated as duty period and in which case, the petitioner is entitled for all the emoluments for the said period. 7. Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for the respondents submits that the de nova enquiry has been conducted and punishment of reduction of pay by two stages in the scale for a period of two years with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner, and thereupon, the petitioner has filed the appeal against the said order and the appeal filed by him ended in rejection. The petitioner filed further revision before the Director General, Railway Protection Force, Railway Board and in the revision, the punishment came to be reduced to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. In a way, his submission is in view of the developments pending the Writ Petition that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive and therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. 8. In response, Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the proceedings ultimately ended in minor penalty, in which case, the period from the order of compulsory retirement to the date of reinstatement is to be treated as duty period, in which case, the petitioner is entitled to all monetary benefits for the said period. 9. Sri Gouri Shankar Sanghi, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for the respondents submits that since the departmental proceedings being ended with minor penalty, all benefits for the interregnum period must have been received by the petitioner by now. 10. Since the de nova enquiry has been completed and ultimately, the departmental proceedings ended with minor penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect, the period between the order of compulsory retirement and the date of reinstatement is required to be regularized as per para.1344 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to regulate the period from the date of order of compulsory retirement to the date of order of reinstatement i.e. from 11.08.1999 to 11.11.1999 as per para.1344 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and to pay the emoluments to the petitioner accordingly, if not already paid. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd September, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.2834 of 2000 Date:02nd September, 2011