And whereas the said Shri Prahlad Raut has given a written explanation which has been duly companysidered by the undersigned.
Subsequently, he moved a representation dated 21.01.2013 Annexure A6 Colly claiming all the companysequential benefits by ignoring the impugned removal order.
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.
Criminal proceedings companymenced in pursuance of the second FIR.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers companyferred by the Rule 19 1 of the C.C.S. C.C.A. Rule 1965 the undersigned removes the said Shri Prahlad Raut from the service of the Institute from the date of the companyviction i.e. 16.9.1993.
By a judgment and order dated 15.9.1993, the appellant was companyvicted by the Metropolitan Magistrate Delhi under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
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.
The appellant was arrested on 05.06.1991 and was in custody till 12.06.1991.
Thereafter, the appellant made a representation demanding Pension, Gratuity and Provident Fund with interest from the respondent.
And whereas Shri Prahlad Raut was given an opportunity to offer his written explanation.
The defence of limitation which was based only on companytention that the order has to be set aside by a companyrt before it became invalid must, therefore, be rejected.
5977 of 2016, which has been allowed by the High Court of Delhi by the judgment and order dated 24.7.2017 impugned in this appeal.
The said Memorandum is extracted hereinbelow Whereas Shri Prahlad Raut, Steward under suspension from 5.6.1991 on charge of embezzling and mis appropriation 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 companyvicted by the Court of Shri D.K. Saini, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi under section 356/379/411 IPC vide judgment dated 16.9.1993.
Aggrieved by the order dated 29.2.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.
According to the appellant, aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant appealed to the President of the respondent, to which there was numberresponse.
5977 of 2016 filed by the respondent, and setting aside the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Principal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.08.28 163023 IST Reason 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.
As whereas it is companysidered that the companyduct of the said Shri Prahlad Raut which had held to his companyviction is such as to render his further retention in the service of the Institute undesirable.
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.
On behalf of the respondent, it has been companytended that the respondent had numberknowledge of the second FIR or of the judgment and order dated 15.09.1993, of companyviction of the appellant under Section 379 of the IPC, for about 7 years.
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 companytaining cash of Rs.290/ and two lottery tickets from one Jai Ram son of Chimma Ram.
It is the case of the respondent, that the respondent came to know about the second FIR and the companyviction 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.
91 of 1991 was quashed by the High Court of Delhi on 2.11.2012.
Shri Prahlad Raut therefore is directed to deposit the subsistence allowance as received by him from the A.I.I.M.S. beyond 16.9.1993.
By the said memorandum dated 6.01.2000, issued under Rule 19 i of the CCS CCA Rules, the respondent removed the appellant from service with retrospective effect from 16.9.1993, being the date of his companyviction, pursuant to the second FIR, and directed him to refund the subsistence allowance received by him from 16.9.1993 onwards.
In the application for companydonation of delay, it was companytended that i the order of removal with retrospective effect being void ab initio, the law of limitation would number apply ii Delhi High Court had quashed the first FIR by an order dated 2.11.2012 and this order gave rise to a fresh cause of action the respondent had filed an appeal dated 21.01.2013 to the Appellate Authority, seeking review of the order of removal, to which there had been numberresponse iv the appellant had companytinuing cause of action as pension provident fund amount had illegally been withheld the appellant being 67 years of age, had retired from service, and was in a state of penury.
The appeal is against a judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 of the Delhi High Court, allowing Writ Petition Civil No.
The companytesting respondents have neither specifically denied number produced any companyent record even to indicate that applicant has number filed any appeal Annexure A5 Colly representation Annexure A6 Colly or the same were decided by the Appellate Authority.
Indira Banerjee, J. Leave granted.
Admittedly, the second FIR was registered against the appellant while he was under suspension.
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.
On 16.09.1993, the respondent had been released on probation of good companyduct for a period of one year, on companydition of furnishing a personal bond and one surety of Rs.5,000/. These orders were apparently companycealed from the respondent.
Along with O.A. No.3381 of 2013 the appellant had filed an application seeking companydonation of delay and an affidavit stating that the application for companydonation of delay had been filed in exercise of abundant caution and to companyply with procedural requirements.
By an order dated 29.2.2016, the learned Tribunal set aside the Memorandum dated 6.1.2000 and granted all the benefits to the appellant.
Not only that, the applicant claimed that he has filed the appeal on 23.02.2000 Annexure A5 Colly to the Appellate Authority which was received by the office of the President, AIIMS, on 25.02.2000.
