Usha Raghunath Bhosale vs M/o Defence on 26 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: Shri Krishna, Member (A):

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. However, during pendency of the OA he had expired. Vide order dated 28.06.2024 in MA No. 591/2024, the legal heirs of the employee i.e. Mrs. Usha Milind Bhosale is brought on record. Therefore, the O.A. is being agitated by the legal heir to claim for the following reliefs:

(a) To allow the original application

(b) To quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10.03.2016, 21.08.2015, and dated 11.05.2015.

(bb) To quash and set aside the Corrigendum/ letter dated 21.02.2017.

(c) To hold and declare that, since the applicant, is finally imposed a minor penalty, his period from 02.09.2004 till he was allowed to rejoin on 18.08.2015 be treated as period spent on duty for all purposes.

(d) To direct the respondents to pay full pay and allowances to applicant for the entire period from 02.09.2004 till 17.08.2015 minus the amounts of subsistence allowance paid to him during the period 02.09.2004 to 31.10.2006.

(e) To pass any other order which may be just and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(f) To award the cost of application.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant in the Original Application are that he was initially appointed as Junior Scientific Assistant Gr. II on 23.01.1984. He was suspended on 02.09.2004 in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. A major penalty charge memorandum dated 10.11.2004 was issued to the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Inquiry Officer (IO) completed the inquiry and submitted his Inquiry Report (IR) to the Disciplinary Authority (DA) i.e. respondent no. 2, which culminated in passing of order dated 30.10.2006 (A/4), by which penalty of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the applicant by Director General, Research and Development, New Delhi.

In addition to above departmental inquiry, the respondent no. 4 has filed a criminal case No. 377/2005 against the applicant in the Court of J.F.M.C. The Hon’ble Court vide judgment dated 24.10.2008 had acquitted the applicant.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

2.1. The applicant submitted his statutory appeal dated 03.01.2007 to the appellate authority which came to be rejected by the appellate authority on 02.03.2007. 2.2 The applicant filed OA No. 205/2009 for quashing and setting aside the impugned order of removal from service dated 30.10.2006 and order of the appellate authority dated 02.03.2007. The said OA was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 18.11.2014 (A/5) by directing the appellate authority to reconsider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order.

2.3. Pursuant to the above order of the Tribunal, the appellate authority passed a fresh order dated 11.05.2015 substituting the punishment of compulsory retirement to penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the pay scale by one stage for a period not exceeding 3 years without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting the pension. Accordingly, the applicant joined duty on 19.08.2015 as T.O – A in the office of respondent no. 5.

2.4. The applicant noticed that the order of the appellate authority dated 11.05.2015 (A/3) does not say by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

anything about regularizing the entire period of his suspension and till the applicant joined duty on 19.08.2015, and also does not state about grant of his pay and allowances. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 08.12.2015 (A/6) to the Respondent No. 2 praying that since minor penalty has been imposed on him, the entire period of his suspension i.e. from September 2004 to August 2015 should be treated as period spent on duty and he is entitled to get full pay and allowances for the said period of suspension and till he was allowed to rejoin duty as per the law/rules. However, the respondents no. 3 vide order dated 10.03.2016 has communicated that the period from his date of compulsory retirement to his date of rejoining service i.e. 07.11.2006 to 18.08.2015, be treated as period spent on duty for the purpose of pensionary benefits only and that no pay and allowances shall be admissible for the period of absence from duty. The impugned order dated 10.03.2016 does not speak anything as to how the period of suspension till the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on him.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

2.5. It is submitted that, the period of suspension from 02.09.2004 till 30.10.2006, when penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed has to be treated as on duty for all purposes, and the difference of arrears of pay and allowances and the subsistence allowance already paid to the applicant during his suspension has also to be paid by the respondents to the applicant, considering that the applicant has now been finally awarded a minor penalty by the respondents, after the Tribunal had quashed and set aside the penalty vide order dated 18.11.2014 in OA No. 205/2009.

2.6. It is submitted that after the penalty of compulsory retirement was inflicted on the applicant vide order dated 30.10.2006, the respondents did not pay a single rupee to him by the way of pension at any time, since 30.10.2006 though the applicant had approached the respondents for pension etc. It is submitted that other retirement benefits were also not paid to the applicant, and the entire amount were kept with respondents, with no pension, so as to make the applicant by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

suffer financially. It is submitted that the applicant was not paid any amount in respect of period from 30.1.2006 till he rejoined duty on 19.08.2015 and this action of the respondents was arbitrary and bad in law since any employee on being imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement is entitled to receive pension and other retiral benefits from the applicant.

2.7. It is submitted that applicant is entitled to receive full salary for the entire period starting from date of his suspension on 02.09.2004 till 18.08.2015 along with interest.

2.8. It is submitted that the copy of Tribunal’s order dt. 11.04.2014 in OA No. 205/2009 contained some typographical error, which was corrected by order dated 05.05.2014 in MA No. 295/2014 and the corrected copy of the said order was sent to all the respondents who were to pass a reasoned order, as directed by the Tribunal in para 31 of the order, within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. It is submitted that the appellate authority passed an order on 11.05.2014, by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

and again passed another order on 10.03.2016. The applicant had filed the present OA on 07.11.2016, challenging the above two orders.

2.9. It is submitted that the appellate authority has now passed another order/corrigendum dated 21.02.2017 amending the last para of the penalty order dtd. 10.03.2016 and the applicant is also challenging the said order/letter dated. 21.02.2017.

3. After issuance of notice, the respondents have filed their reply and contested the OA. It is submitted that present second round of litigation of the applicant is seeking to re-assess the evidence on record and come to a different conclusion before the competent authority decides the matter which is not within the scope or power of judicial review of this Hon’ble Tribunal as held repeatedly by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is submitted that the OA is also devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with cost. The applicant is imposed with the punishment based on sufficient evidence in the matter, hence the by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

action of the respondents is strictly in accordance with law.

3.1. It is submitted that respondents are relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v/s S. Subramaniam (AIR 1996 SC 12320. Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 Section 19 – Appeal before Tribunal – Powers of Tribunal – Conclusions reached by authority based on evidence – Tribunal is devoid of power to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusions.

3.2. It is contended that it is settled law that the Tribunal does not have power for judicial review of the administrative action of the appellant on complaints relating to service conditions of employee. It is the executive domains of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the evidence on record and record findings whether the charges have been proved or not. It is equally settled law that a technical rule of evidence has no application for the disciplinary proceedings and the authority is to consider the material on record. In judicial by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

review, it is settled law that the Court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction of the authorities to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusions. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence. The only consideration, the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial review, is to consider whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusions are based on no evidence. It is submitted that in the case of Govt. of Tamil Nadu v/s K. N. Ramamurthy reported in 1998 (1) SLJ (SC) 63, power of Tribunal – Quantus of Penalty, held Tribunal cannot interfere in findings if there is no flaw in procedure.

3.3. It is stated that vide letter dated 21.02.2017, DRDO Hqrs, New Delhi has issued corrigendum with reference to para i.e. para 10 of the DRDO Hqrs, New by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

Delhi order No. DOP/01/01050/RDE (E)/M/01 dated 10.03.2016 stating following amendments in the ibid order: “FOR “Now therefore, the Appellate Authority after considering the representation dated 8.12.2015 of Shri M R Bhosale has confirmed that the period between Shri Bhosle’s compulsory retirement and date of rejoining service i.e. from 07.11.2006 to 18.08.2015 may be treated as spent on duty for the purpose of pensionary benefits only and that no pay and allowances shall be admissible for the period of absence from duty.” READ: NOW THEREFORE, the Appellate Authority after considering the representation dated 08.12.2015 of Shri M R Bhosale has confirmed that the period of suspension from 02.09.2004 to 25.11.2005 and the period between compulsory retirement and date of rejoining service i.e. 07.11.2006 to 18.08.2015 may be treated as spent on duty for the purpose of pensionary benefits only and that no pay and allowance shall be admissible for the period of absence from duty” 3.4 It is submitted that the impugned order dated 10.03.2016 clearly indicates that an Inquiry was held in the matter and the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 31.08.2005 found Shri M R Bhosale, TO ‘A’ guilty of all charges listed in the charge sheet. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority after considering all facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding of the Inquiry Committee, imposed punishment of compulsory retirement with full compensation pension and gratuity as admissible by rules on Shri M R Bhosale.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

3.5. It is stated that vide letter dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure Rs/1) as amendment done in its previous order dated 10.03.2016, have clearly stated that “NOW THEREFORE, the Appellate Authority after considering the representation dated 08.12.2015 of Shri M R Bhosale has confirmed that he period of suspension from 02.09.2004 to 25.11.2005 and the period between Compulsory Retirement and date of rejoining service i.e. 07.11.2006 to 18.08.2015 may be treated as spent on duty for the purpose of pensionary benefits only and that no pay and allowance shall be admissible for the period of absence from duty”. Hence, the period of suspension and absence (from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of rejoining) is to be treated as spent on duty for the purpose of pensionary benefit only and that no pay and allowances is admissible for the period of absenteeism from duty.

3.6. It is submitted that in the light of the above the OA is without substance and hence liable to be dismissed with cost.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

4. In addition to the above the respondents have relied on following judgments:

a) 1998 (1) SLJ (SC) 63 Govt. of Tamil Nadu v/s K N Ramamurthy.

b) JT 1998 (4) SC 2366 Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. v/s S. Shanmugam.

c) 1998 (1) SCSLJ 74 Union of India v/s BK Srivastava.

d) 1998

SCSLJ

Union of India v/s A. Nagamalleshwari.

e) JT 1998 SC 61 Apparel Export Promotion Council v/s A K Chopra.

f) AIR 2014 SC 766 (2013) 10 SCC 106 Deputy Commissioner, KVS v/s J. Hussain.

g) (2011) 15 SCC 310 Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank and others v/s D M Parmar.

h) (2013) 12 SCC 372 Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v/s Rajendra Singh.

i) (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 641 Stazen Toyotestsu India Pvt Ltd v/s Girish V & ors.

j) (2014) 1 SLJ (SC) 273 State of West Bengal v/s Shakar Ghosh.

k) (2011) 8 SCC 695 Oriental Bank of Commerce v/s R K Uppal.

l) (2015) 2 SCC 610 UOI & ors v/s P Gunasekharan

m) Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad Ltd. v/s Karunakar reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727.

n) Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v/s Superintendent Engineer Gujrat Electricity Board Himmatnagar (Gujrat) & another reported in (1996) 11 SCC 603.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

o) Union of India and others v/s Jaipal Singh reported in (2004) 1 SCC 121.

p) The Govt. of India & another v/s Geroge Philip reported in (2006) 13 SCC 1.

5. Thereafter, the applicant has filed MA for amendment in the OA. The respondents have filed reply to the MA for amendment, which was allowed by the Tribunal.

6. The applicant has filed the compilation of judgment relied upon by him which are as follows:

a) CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 1206/2005 (KJS Bhutani v/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi & ors. )

7. The applicant has further relied on following judgments:

a) S S Rathore v/s State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1989) 4 SCC

b) Prafulla Ranjan Das v/s Union of India and others reported in 1993 (2) SLJ 212

c) S P Malik v/s Board of Trustees, Mormugao Port Trust Goa and others reported in 1993 (3) Mh. L.J 351.

d) Y S Sachan v/s State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2003 (4) MPLJ 219.

e) Deena Nath Tiwari v/s Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwa Vidyalaya Sagar reported in 2004 (2) ATJ.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

f) S. Chandrasekharan v/s The Joint Director of Agriculture Tituchirapalli and others reported in 2014 SCC Online Madras 4595.

g) S Dakshinamoorty v/s Dy. Inspector of Police, Vellore Range, Vellore and others reported in 2015 SCC Online Madras 4595.

h) The Principal Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Dept. of Home, Secretariat Chennai v/s Mr. K. Muthukaruphan IPS and others reported in 2015 SCC Online Madras 13608.

8. During arguments, ld. Counsels for both sides have argued their cases on the basis of pleadings.

9. Ld. Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sujata Krishnan submitted that once the earlier order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 30.10.2006 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and order of the Appellate Authority dated 02.03.2007 were quashed and set aside by this Tribunal in OA No.205/2009 and pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, the Appellate Authority himself, has modified the order of compulsory retirement to a penalty of reduction to lower stage in the pay scale by one stage for a period not exceeding three years without cumulative effect and not adversely effecting the pension, the earlier order cease to exist as they got by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

merged in the subsequent order of the appellate authority dated 11.05.2015. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the respondents to say that the applicant was entitled to be treated on duty only for pensionary benefits and not for pay and allowance for the said period.

9.1. She drew our attention to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S S Rathore (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 14 has said that “it must be held that order of dismissal made by the Collector did merge into the order of the Divisional Commissioner when the appellant’s appeal was dismissed on August 31, 1996.”

9.2. She further drew our attention to the judgment of Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in Prafulla Ranjan Das (supra) decided on 28.04.1993 wherein the Tribunal has said that “Even if major penalty charge sheet was issued, but ultimately minor penalty was awarded and as such it should be presumed that the authority should not have issued major penalty charge sheet and for recovery of the by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

excess amount from the applicant imposition of the minor penalty was in contemplation of the authority then there was no justification for placing the employee under suspension.” The Tribunal has further directed the respondents to pay full pay and allowance to the applicant for the whole of suspension period along with all benefits including increments.

9.3. She further drew our attention to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Panaji – Goa in WP No. 53/1993 decided on 22.02.1999 in the case of S P Naik vs Board of Trustee, Mormugao Port Trust wherein the Hon’ble High Court in para 9 of the judgment has held that “There is considerable force in the contention of the petitioner that in view of imposition of minor penalty, the period of suspension should have been treated as on duty.”

9.4. She has further placed reliance of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench in case of Y S Sachan v/s State of Madhya Pradesh and others in WP No. 3411/200 decided on 05.08.2003 wherein it was held at para 8 that “so far as the salary for by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

the period of suspension is concerned, the petitioner should be paid full salary. A minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. The punishment is so light and therefore the petitioner could not be saddled with the heavier penalty of depriving him the salary for the suspension period. This part of the impugned order is not a speaking order. No reasons have been assigned for depriving the petitioner of his salary for the suspension period. The Government of India has issued circular dated 3.12.1985 stating therein that where departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of major penalty finally ended with the imposition of minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of F. R. 54 B and the employee concerned should, therefore, be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing suitable order under F. R 54 B. The guidelines issued by the Central Government for its employees is just and reasonable and it should be followed by the State Government and its instrumentality.”

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

9.5. She drew our attention to another judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Bench in WP No. 2899/1993 decided on 05.09.2003 in the case of Deena Nath Tiwari v/s Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwa Vidyalaya, Sagar wherein Hon’ble High Court in para 5 of the judgment has held that “When the employee was suspended for the imposition of major penalty which finally culminated into imposition of minor, penalty the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of F.R. 54 B and the employees concerned should therefore be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under F. R. 54 B.”

10. Ld. Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Rajpurohit on the other hand submitted that Tribunal has limited power in the case of Disciplinary Proceeding. He submitted that Tribunal can interfere in the disciplinary proceeding only on three grounds namely (i) where the order has been passed by incompetent authority, (ii) where it is case of no evidence and (iii) where there are violation of principle of natural justice. He submitted that by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

none of the above grounds are present in the instant case of the applicant, therefore there is no case for interference by this Tribunal.

10.1. Mr. Rajpurohit further submitted that article of charges were proved in the departmental inquiry by the Inquiry Officer. He submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v/s S. Subramaniam (AIR) 1996 SC 1232 has held that “conclusions reached by authority based on evidence, Tribunal is devoid of power to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusions.” It is submitted that once it is proved that charges were proved by the Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings, it is the discretion of the respondents whether to impose minor penalty or major penalty and Tribunal cannot substitute its own decisions for the judgment of the departmental authorities. He further submitted that if the employees succeed in fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authorities should get liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from date of dismissal till the by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

reinstatement and to what benefit, if any, and the extent of benefit, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more.

10.2. Mr. Rajpurohit would further argue that in the case of Mr. B C Chaturvedi v/s Union of India, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 18 has held that “a review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact- finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.” It was further held that “If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” Mr. Purohit argued that in the case under consideration there is neither any exceptional circumstances nor it is a rare case, therefore the Tribunal should not interfere with the discretion of the departmental authorities and therefore OA is liable to be dismissed and should be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

11. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and carefully perused the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the judgments relied upon by them. The controversy in the present Original Application is limited to the treatment of the period during which the applicant remained under suspension and the subsequent period from the date of compulsory retirement till his rejoining service, particularly with regard to his entitlement to pay and allowances and other consequential benefits.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

11.1 At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the applicant was initially placed under suspension on 02.09.2004, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, pursuant to which the penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed vide order dated 30.10.2006. The applicant challenged the said order before this Tribunal in OA No. 205/2009. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 18.11.2014, directed the appellate authority to reconsider the matter and pass a reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the appellate authority, vide order dated 11.05.2015, modified the penalty of compulsory retirement to that of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and without adversely affecting the applicant's pension. Consequently, the applicant was permitted to rejoin duty on 19.08.2015.

11.2. The aforesaid subsequent development assumes significance because the original penalty of compulsory retirement, which had deprived the applicant by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

of the opportunity to continue in service, was modified by the appellate authority itself. The issue, therefore, is not whether the Tribunal can reappreciate the evidence recorded during the disciplinary proceedings, but whether the respondents were justified in denying pay and allowances for the disputed periods, particularly when the original penalty of compulsory retirement had been substituted by a minor penalty.

11.3. The respondents have strongly relied upon the settled principle that judicial review in disciplinary matters does not permit the Tribunal to sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority or to substitute its own assessment of the evidence. There can be no quarrel with this proposition. The judgments relied upon by the respondents, including State of Tamil Nadu v. S. Subramaniam and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, reiterate the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings. However, the present case does not call for reappreciation of the evidence or interference with the findings recorded in the departmental inquiry. The by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

question before us concerns the legal consequences flowing from the modification of the penalty and the consequential determination of the applicant's entitlement to pay and allowances. Such a question falls within the scope of judicial review.

11.4. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments in Prafulla Ranjan Das v. Union of India, S.P. Naik v. Board of Trustees, Mormugao Port Trust, Y.S. Sachan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and Deena Nath Tiwari v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwa Vidyalaya, Sagar, to contend that where disciplinary proceedings initiated for the imposition of a major penalty ultimately culminate in the imposition of a minor penalty, the question of treating the suspension period as duty and granting full pay and allowances requires due consideration under the applicable service rules.

11.5. The aforesaid judgments lend support to the applicant's contention that the nature of the final penalty imposed is a relevant consideration while deciding the treatment of the suspension period. However, the by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

entitlement to full pay and allowances does not follow automatically merely because a major penalty has ultimately been substituted by a minor penalty. The competent authority is required to consider the matter in accordance with the applicable statutory rules, particularly Fundamental Rule 54-B, and to pass an appropriate order taking into account the circumstances leading to the suspension, the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, and the nature of the final penalty.

11.6. In the present case, the order dated 10.03.2016, as subsequently amended by corrigendum dated 21.02.2017, directs that the suspension period from 02.09.2004 to 25.11.2005 and the period from 07.11.2006 to 18.08.2015 be treated as spent on duty for the purpose of pensionary benefits only, without admissibility of pay and allowances for the period of absence from duty. 11.7 A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that the respondents have primarily confined their consideration to denying pay and allowances for the aforesaid periods. However, the material placed before us by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

does not demonstrate that the applicant's claim for regularisation of the suspension period and payment of consequential monetary benefits was examined in the light of the modification of the original penalty and the relevant provisions of Fundamental Rule 54-B. The mere statement that the period shall count for pensionary benefits does not, by itself, answer the distinct question of whether the applicant is entitled to pay and allowances for that period.

11.8. We also find that the original order dated 10.03.2016 did not expressly deal with the entire period of suspension commencing on 02.09.2004. The subsequent corrigendum dated 21.02.2017 introduced a reference to the period of suspension from 02.09.2004 to 25.11.2005. However, the corrigendum does not, by itself, establish that the applicant's claim for pay and allowances for the entire suspension period from 02.09.2004 to 30.10.2006 has been examined in accordance with the applicable rules. The respondents were required to consider the suspension period separately from the period following the by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

imposition of the original penalty of compulsory retirement, as the legal and service consequences of these two periods are not necessarily identical.

11.9. As regards the period commencing from the imposition of compulsory retirement on 30.10.2006 until the applicant rejoined duty on 19.08.2015, it is an admitted position that the original penalty was subsequently modified by the appellate authority pursuant to the directions issued by this Tribunal. The respondents were, therefore, required to determine the consequential treatment of this period in the light of the modified penalty and the applicable service rules. The fact that the appellate authority substituted the original major penalty with a minor penalty was a relevant circumstance that required consideration while deciding the applicant's claim. The respondents could not dispose of the claim merely by stating that the period would count for pensionary benefits only, without demonstrating that the applicable rules and the effect of the modified penalty had been duly considered.

by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

11.10. We are conscious of the fact that the order dated 11.05.2015, by which the penalty was modified, does not appear to contain an express direction regarding the treatment of the intervening period or the payment of salary and allowances for that period. Nevertheless, the absence of such a direction did not absolve the respondents of their obligation to consider the applicant's subsequent representation dated 08.12.2015 in accordance with the applicable rules. The impugned orders were required to disclose due consideration of the relevant circumstances and the legal position governing the applicant's claim.

11.11. We further note that the applicant has since expired during the pendency of the present proceedings and that his legal heir, Mrs. Usha Milind Bhosale, has been brought on record pursuant to the order dated 28.06.2024 passed in MA No. 591/2024. The claim for arrears of pay and allowances, if found admissible under the applicable rules, is a monetary claim capable of being considered for payment to the person by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

legally entitled to receive the same. The applicant's death during the pendency of the proceedings does not, by itself, render the claim for such consequential monetary benefits infructuous.

11.12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders dated 10.03.2016 and 21.02.2017 cannot be sustained to the extent that they deny pay and allowances without demonstrating due consideration of the applicant's claim under the applicable service rules and the consequences of the modification of the original penalty. At the same time, we are not inclined to straightaway direct payment of full pay and allowances for the entire period claimed, as such entitlement requires determination by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and the relevant facts. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

12. In view of the above discussion, the Original Application is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 10.03.2016 and corrigendum dated 21.02.2017 are set by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

aside to the extent indicated hereinabove, insofar as they dispose of the applicant's claim for pay and allowances without a reasoned determination in accordance with the applicable service rules.

12.1. The respondents are directed to reconsider the applicant's claim for regularisation of the period of suspension from 02.09.2004 to 30.10.2006 and the period from 31.10.2006 until his rejoining duty on 19.08.2015, in the light of the final penalty imposed vide order dated 11.05.2015, the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54-B and other applicable service rules, and the judicial precedents relevant to the issue. While doing so, the respondents shall examine the two periods separately, record appropriate findings regarding the admissibility of pay and allowances and consequential service benefits, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

12.2. While reconsidering the matter, the competent authority shall specifically consider whether, and to what extent, the applicant is entitled to full or any other admissible amount of pay and allowances for the by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

suspension period, after adjustment of the subsistence allowance already paid, and whether any monetary benefits are admissible for the period following the original order of compulsory retirement until the applicant's rejoining service. The authority shall also take into account the modification of the original penalty by the appellate authority and the fact that the substituted penalty was not to have an adverse effect on the applicant's pension.

12.3. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event that any additional monetary benefits are found admissible, the same shall be calculated and released to the person or persons legally entitled to receive them, subject to applicable rules and adjustment of amounts already paid.

12.4. It is clarified that this Tribunal has not expressed any final opinion on the precise amount of pay and allowances payable to the applicant or on the ultimate treatment of the disputed periods. These matters by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR

shall be determined by the competent authority independently, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein.

12.5. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna) Member (J) Member (A) (sadish) Digitally signed by C SADISH KUMAR Date:

C SADISH KUMAR