W.P. (C) No.1903/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.1903/2010 % Date of Decision: 07.05.2010 UOI & Ors. …. Petitioner Through Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Versus Jwala Prasad …. Respondent Through Nemo CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The petitioner, Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway and Ors. has impugned the order dated 27th July, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 975/2008 titled as Sh. Jwala Prasad Vs. Union of India through General Manager and Ors., allowing the Original Application of the respondent and treating the period from 29th July, 2002 to 23rd October, 2003 as a period spent on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances. W.P. (C) No.1903/2010 Page 2 of 4 On account of a train accident, minor penalty was imposed upon the respondent which was later on enhanced to compulsory retirement, which was challenged by the respondent by filing an appeal and thereafter a revision. The enhanced punishment of compulsory retirement was set aside in the appeal and the revision and was reduced to reduction in the lower grade for a period of two years without cumulative effect. While reducing the penalty, it was, however, held that the intervening period be treated as leave without pay. The respondent had challenged the order dated 23rd October, 2003, directing treating the intervening period as leave without pay being in violation of a Statutory Rule on the ground that the responsibility for the accident was only on both the Cabin ASMs, who have been punished with removal from service in July, 2002, which punishment was also reduced. In the circumstances, it was contended that treating the intervening period as leave without pay could not be imposed. It was contended that DRM, Jhansi was directed by the Tribunal to decide the appeal of the respondent within two months by passing detailed and reasoned order. He, however, enhanced the penalty from reduction of the pay scale of 5000-8000 to Rs. 4500-7000 W.P. (C) No.1903/2010 Page 3 of 4 with compulsory retirement without giving any reasons, which was set aside by the Revisional Authority. However, the intervening period was directed by the Revisional Authority to be treated as leave without pay is also in violation of the statutory Rules contained in Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume-2. The Tribunal noted these facts as well as provisions of Rule 1342, 1343 & 1344 of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol.-2 and noticing that the delay was not directly attributable to the respondent and therefore, the Tribunal allowed the original application of the respondent holding that intervening period from 29th July, 2002 to 23rd October, 2003 cannot be treated as leave of any kind of the respondent and directed the period to be treated as spent on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order contending that perusal of the record will show the culpability of the respondent also in the accident and in the circumstances, the Tribunal is not justified in directing the petitioner to treat the intervening period as spent on duty for all purposes including pay and allowances. As to what is the extent of culpability of the respondent, is not to be gone into by this Court at this juncture when the punishment of compulsory retirement has already been set aside and only the W.P. (C) No.1903/2010 Page 4 of 4 punishment of reduction to a lower grade for two years without cumulative effect was awarded. The only dispute is whether the period from 29th July, 2002 to 23rd October, 2003 is to be treated as a leave without pay. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that DRM, Jhansi violated the directions of the Tribunal in deciding the appeal within two months leading to delay and the order passed by DRM, Jhansi ordering the compulsory retirement was also set aside and only the penalty of reduction in the lower grade for two years was awarded, therefore, relying on Rule 1343(FR-54) proviso has held that the period be treated as spent on duty for all purposes as it has not been established that proceedings instituted were delayed on account of the respondent or for any reason attributable to him. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any such illegality or irregularity in the order of the Tribunal, which will require any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore, without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. MAY 07, 2010 MOOL CHAND GARG, J. ‘rs’