It was also the specific case of the appellant that he was number at fault in number joining at the transferred place as he was number given the relieving order and necessary passes to enable him to join at the transferred place.
For the said unauthorised occupation of the quarter after orders of transfer, departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant and ultimately on that companynt, he was removed from service on 31.5.84.
The Appellate Authority, after remand b y the Tribunal, ser aside the order of removal and imposed a minor punishment of withholding increments for three years.
Challenging the order of removal as companyfirmed by the Appellate Authority, he preferred a Writ Petition in the High Court which was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The appellant again preferred an application before the Central Administrative, Tribunal challenging the order of the Appellate Authority imposing minor punishment and declining to pay salary from the date of transfer till he was allowed to join the duty.
The respondents preferred an appeal to the learned District judge against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act the appeal was allowed.
The suspension was revoked b y another order on 28.1.81.
However, according to the appellant, since numberrelieving order was given and relevant passes were number made available, he companyld number join at the transferred place.
The Tribunal by an order dated 8.9.87 set aside the order of removal as companyfirmed by the Appellate Authority, with a direction to dispose of the appeal afresh with a reasoned order.
However, the Appellate Authority declined the relief of salary for the period from the date of transfer till he was allowed to join duty.
Since the order of transfer itself was quashed, the appellant claimed his salary from the date of transfer till he was permitted to joint duty.
In the meanwhile, the appellant also initiated parallel proceedings in the Civil Court challenging the order of transfer itself and the Trial Court decreed the suit quashing the order of transfer.
The appeal filed against the removal from service was rejected in limine on 2.11.84.
He preferred an application successfully under the provisions of the payment of Wages Act claiming wages for the period he was kept under suspension.
By an order dated 28.6.77, he was placed under suspension with effect from 1.7.77.
The appeals filed by the Railways before the Appellate Court and the High Court were dismissed.
Against that, the appellant preferred a Writ Peittion before the High Court at Allahabad and that was allowed by the High Court on 5.9.84.
To appreciate the question, brief facts are necessary, which are as follows The deceased appellant was n a employee in the Railways.
The result was the order of transfer was quashed.
In the meanwhile, the appellant was transferred from Izatnagar to Kashipur.
Special leave granted.
For the sake of companyvenience, the deceased appellant will be referred to herein as the appellant.
Venkataswani, j .
