1996 (8) TMI 513

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alse certificates. Consequently, a report was laid under Section 420, 468 and 127, Indian Penal Code and he was kept under suspension. Independent thereof, exercising the power under Rule 5 of the Central Government Services (Temporary) Service Rules 1949, his services were terminated by order dated September 10, 1957. The respondent after his acquittal by the criminal court laid the suit in forma pauperis on August 13, 1965 seeking declaration that the termination of his service was wrong, unconstitutional, that he should be deemed to have continued in service and that he was entitled to Rs. 84,000/- by way salary and damages by way of expenses incurred by him to defend the criminal cases etc. The trial Judge (single Judge of the High Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....other hand, contended that the order of suspension does indicate that the respondent was kept under suspension pending criminal proceedings; he was ultimately acquitted. Thereafter, he made a representation for reinstatement; on its rejection, the suit came to be laid and, therefore, the suit was not barred by limitation. In support thereof he placed reliance on two judgments of this Court, viz., Babulal vs. State of Haryana & Ors [(1991) 2 SCC 335] and State of M.P. vs Syed Qamarali [1967 SLR 228]. He also contended that the appeal was incompetent since the respondent had impleaded the Union of India as the first party- defendant and the aggrieved person would be only the Union of India and not the Secretary. The Special Leave Petition als....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the delay has been properly explained in filing the special leave petition. The appellants have sufficiently stated the circumstances in which they came to file the special leave petition after the expiry of limitation. It is not in dispute that the counsel who appeared for the Union of India in the High Court had sent his record and intimation of the result after the expiry of limitation. Therefore, the blame has to be laid on the counsel who was irresponsible is not informing the Government, after the appeal was allowed by the High Court. The Government acts only through its officers at diverse stage. The advocate who appeared for the Union of India had forsaken his responsibility without informing the Government of the action to be ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or any other competent authority, it cannot stop. On expiry of three years from the date of dismissal of the respondent from service, the respondent had lost his right to sue for the above declaration. The contention of Shri Keshav Dayal is that the order of suspension has been made pending investigation into the offence. It would contemplate that respondent has got a right to take action consequent to the result of the criminal case. Since he was acquitted of the charge on May 8, 1964, cause of action had on that day, first arisen to the respondent. We find no force in the contention. Three courses are open to the employer. Firstly to take action in terms of the order of appointment; Secondly, according to the conduct rules; and thirdly a....