Supreme Court reinstates employee, orders new proceedings and pension restoration.

The Supreme Court allowed the petition of Respondent No. 1 challenging his dismissal from service, leading to his reinstatement due to lack of enquiry. The Court directed the withdrawal of his suspension and fresh departmental proceedings. Respondent's claim for promotions and benefits was dismissed as untenable, stale, and not maintainable. The Court ordered the restoration of his pension, rejecting arguments of delay in filing the petition. The delay in filing the Special Leave Petition was condoned, and the appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's judgment on promotion considerations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the dismissal of Respondent No. 1 from service.
2. Legitimacy of the suspension and departmental proceedings against Respondent No. 1.
3. Entitlement of Respondent No. 1 to promotions and consequential benefits.
4. Validity of the permanent forfeiture of Respondent No. 1's pension.
5. Delay and latches in filing the writ petition by Respondent No. 1.
6. Condonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the dismissal of Respondent No. 1 from service:
The Respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service on January 15, 1972, based on the High Court's recommendation. He challenged this dismissal under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court allowed his petition on the grounds that the termination was stigmatic and ordered without holding an enquiry, leading to his reinstatement.

2. Legitimacy of the suspension and departmental proceedings against Respondent No. 1:
After reinstatement, Respondent No. 1 was suspended on April 12, 1974, and departmental proceedings were initiated. He challenged both actions, but the High Court dismissed his petitions. The Supreme Court later directed the High Court to withdraw the suspension and granted liberty to amend the charge sheet before reinitiating proceedings. Fresh proceedings were initiated, and the Inquiry Officer found the charges proved, leading to a show cause notice for removal from service. The Respondent did not reply, and the High Court dismissed his writ petition as infructuous.

3. Entitlement of Respondent No. 1 to promotions and consequential benefits:
Respondent No. 1 claimed promotions and benefits given to his juniors. His initial writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, and the SLP against this order was withdrawn, making the dismissal final. Subsequent representations and petitions for promotions were rejected. The Supreme Court noted that Respondent No. 1 was never confirmed as Munsif, making his claim for higher promotions untenable. The claim was also deemed stale and filed without impleading juniors who had been promoted.

4. Validity of the permanent forfeiture of Respondent No. 1's pension:
The High Court recommended withholding Respondent No. 1's pension permanently, which the State Government implemented. However, the Supreme Court directed the State to restore his pension and pay arrears, Provident Fund, Gratuity, and leave salary, showing compassion and clemency.

5. Delay and latches in filing the writ petition by Respondent No. 1:
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the writ petition should be dismissed for delay and latches. The delay was calculated from the rejection of the last representation in September 1990, not from the date of superannuation. Therefore, the petition was not dismissed on this ground.

6. Condonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petition (SLP):
The Supreme Court condoned the delay of eight days in filing the SLP ex-parte, which was challenged by Respondent No. 1. The Court justified the condonation, stating that the explanation for the delay was plausible and the Appellant was neither negligent nor dilatory. The Court upheld the condonation of delay and rejected the contention that notice should have been issued to Respondent No. 1 before condoning the delay.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment directing the consideration of Respondent No. 1's promotion and consequential benefits. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was overturned, concluding that the claims for promotion were stale, not maintainable, and barred by res judicata.

---