Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) against the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's order setting aside the removal of Prahlad Raut from service. The appellant, Prahlad Raut, was appointed as a Bearer in AIIMS in 1972 and later promoted to Steward. He became treasurer of the AIIMS Cooperative Society. In 1991, two FIRs were registered against him: one for embezzlement of Rs.5 lakhs from the Cooperative Society (FIR No.91/1991) and another for snatching a bag containing cash and lottery tickets (FIR No.868/1991). He was convicted under Section 379 IPC in the second FIR on 15.9.1993 and released on probation. AIIMS, claiming it had no knowledge of the conviction for about 7 years, issued a memorandum on 6.1.2000 under Rule 19(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, removing Raut from service with retrospective effect from the date of his conviction. Raut filed an appeal which was allegedly rejected but no order was traceable. Over a decade later, in 2012, the first FIR was quashed by the Delhi High Court after Raut compensated the society. In 2013, Raut filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the 2000 removal order, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the removal order, granting all benefits. The Delhi High Court, on AIIMS's writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court framed the issue of limitation and continuing wrong. It held that the removal order was a final order and not a continuing wrong; the quashing of a different FIR did not create a fresh cause of action; and the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay of over 13 years. The Court also upheld the validity of the removal under Rule 19(i), noting that the procedure was followed and the conviction justified the penalty. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Limitation - Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Condonation of Delay - The appellant challenged a removal order after 13 years, claiming continuing wrong and fresh cause of action due to quashing of another FIR - The Supreme Court held that the removal order was a one-time final order, not a continuing wrong, and the quashing of a different FIR did not give a fresh cause of action - The Tribunal's condonation of delay was improper as no sufficient cause was shown (Paras 18-30). B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Summary Dismissal on Conviction - The respondent removed the appellant from service under Rule 19(i) based on his conviction under Section 379 IPC for theft - The Court held that the procedure under Rule 19(i) was validly followed, including giving an opportunity of representation, and the removal was justified as the conduct rendered further retention undesirable (Paras 11-13). C) Limitation Act - Continuing Wrong - Applicability to Service Orders - The appellant argued that withholding of pension and gratuity constituted a continuing wrong - The Supreme Court rejected this, holding that the removal order itself was the cause of action, and subsequent denial of benefits flowed from that order, not a fresh wrong - The limitation period started from the date of the removal order (Paras 19-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could condone a delay of over 13 years in challenging a removal order under Rule 19(i) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and whether the removal order was per se illegal or a continuing wrong.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Delhi High Court's order that set aside the Tribunal's condonation of delay and reinstatement. The Court held that the removal order was not a continuing wrong, the quashing of a different FIR did not create a fresh cause of action, and the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Limitation under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act
- 1985
- Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules
- 1965
- Continuing wrong
- Sufficient cause for condonation of delay
