Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Prahlad Raut – Appellant
Versus
All India Institute of Medical Sciences – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6640 of 2019 (@ SLP(C) No. 30046 of 2017)
Decided On : 27-08-2019
(a) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 21 – Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rules 10(2) and 19(i) – Removal from service – Conviction in criminal case – Over a decade after appellant was removed from service, he entered into settlement with respondent, I terms whereof he compensated the respondent for loss caused by him to Cooperative Society – It was not case of appellant that there was sufficient cause for delay of about thirteen years beyond period of limitation in filing Original Application – Successive representations do not save limitation and certainly does not justify delay of about thirteen years in approaching Tribunal. (Paras 12, 13, 15, 27 and 28)
(b) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rules 10(2) and 19(i) – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Section 21 – Removal from service – Conviction in criminal case – Appellant has apparently been given opportunity of hearing – Question of retrospective discharge and removal cannot be raised after lapse of thirteen years – High Court rightly declined to accept finding of Tribunal that O.A. was within period of limitation – Besides, first FIR was quashed pursuant to settlement between appellant and respondent in terms whereof appellant compensated pecuniary loss caused by him to Cooperative Society – FIR was not quashed on the ground that same did not disclose any offence or was otherwise frivolous, vexatious or harassive – While under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings for misconduct related to first FIR, appellant committed theft of a bag containing money at a public place for which he was convicted under Section 379 of IPC – Any sympathy for appellant would be completely misplaced – Judgment and order of High Court under appeal affirmed. (Paras 33, 39, 46 and 47)
(c) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Limitation – Law of limitation is founded on public policy – Object of limitation is to put quietus on stale and dead disputes – A person ought not to be allowed to agitate his claim after a long delay – There can be no doubt that when retiral benefits are withheld without cause, there would be a continuing cause of action – However, when retirement benefits are withheld by way of disciplinary action, order would necessarily have to be challenged within period of limitation or alternatively there would have to be sufficient cause for delay – Once there is cessation of employer-employee relationship by order of termination, cause of action would necessarily arise when order of termination is passed – Forfeiture of pensionary benefits by reason of a punitive order of termination is not a continuing cause of action. (Para 44)
Facts of the Case:
Present appeal assails judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 of Delhi High Court, allowing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5977 of 2016 filed by respondent, and setting aside the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi, whereby Tribunal had allowed Original Application (O.A.) No.3381 of 2013 filed by appellant challenging an order dated 6.1.2000 removing appellant from service of respondent.
Findings of Court:
First FIR was quashed pursuant to a settlement between appellant and the respondent in terms whereof the appellant compensated the pecuniary loss caused by him to Cooperative Society. FIR was not quashed on the ground that the same did not disclose any offence or was otherwise frivolous, vexatious or harassive.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is against a judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 of the Delhi High Court, allowing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5977 of 2016 filed by the respondent, and setting aside the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi, whereby the learned Tribunal had allowed Original Application (O.A.) No.3381 of 2013 filed by the appellant challenging an order dated 6.1.2000 removing the appellant from the service of the respondent.
3. The appellant was appointed by the respondent as Bearer on 09.02.1972 and was promoted to the post of Steward on 15.10.1987. He was elected as an executive member of the Cooperative Society known as AIIMS Cooperative, Thrift and Credit Society, hereinafter referred to as “Cooperative Society”, run by the respondent, and became its treasurer.
4. On or about 5.3.1991, a First Information Report being FIR No.91 of 1991 under Sections 406/420/ 468/471/477A/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), hereinafter referred to as the first FIR, was registered against the appellant at the Defence Colony Police Station at New Delhi, allegedly for causing loss to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs to the Cooperative Society by forging the signatures of its members.
5. The appellant was arrested on 05.06.1991 and was in custody till 12.06.1991. By reason of his detention for more than 48 hours, the appellant was, by an order dated 7.8.1991, placed under deemed suspension in terms of Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereinafter referred to as “CCS (CCA) Rules” and subsistence allowance was paid to him.
6. While the appellant was under suspension, another FIR No.868 of 1991 under Sections 356/379/411 of the IPC, hereinafter referred to as the second FIR, was registered against the appellant at the Connaught Place Police Station at New Delhi, allegedly for snatching a bag containing cash of Rs.290/- and two lottery tickets from one Jai Ram son of Chimma Ram. Criminal proceedings commenced in pursuance of the second FIR. By a judgment and order dated 15.9.1993, the appellant was convicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Admittedly, the second FIR was registered against the appellant while he was under suspension. On behalf of the respondent, it has been contended that the respondent had no knowledge of the second FIR or of the judgment and order dated 15.09.1993, of conviction of the appellant under Section 379 of the IPC, for about 7 years.
8. On 16.09.1993, the respondent had been released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, on condition of furnishing a personal bond and one surety of Rs.5,000/-. These orders were apparently concealed from the respondent.
9. It is the case of the respondent, that the respondent came to know about the second FIR and the conviction of the appellant pursuant thereto, after about 7 years, after which the respondent was removed from service by a memorandum dated 6.1.2000 issued under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The said Memorandum is extracted hereinbelow:
“Whereas Shri Prahlad Raut, Steward (under suspension) from 5.6.1991 on charge of embezzling and misappropriation in view of F.I.R. No.91 dated 3.3.1991 under Section 406/420/468/471/477A and 120B IPC
And whereas Shri Prahlad Raut was later on charge for an offence of theft of a bag in public place, he had been convicted by the Court of Shri D.K. Saini, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi under section 356/379/411 IPC vide judgment dated 16.9.1993.
As whereas it is considered that the conduct of the said Shri Prahlad Raut which had held to his conviction is such as to render his further retention in the service of the Institute undesirable.
And whereas Shri Prahlad Raut was given an opportunity to offer his written explanation.
And whereas the said Shri Prahlad Raut has given a written explanation which has been duly considered
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
