Summary
The Court upheld rejection of an employee’s challenge, brought in 2013, to his 2000 removal from AIIMS following a theft conviction. Alleged invalidity of retrospective removal did not dispense with statutory limitation. An unanswered service appeal, later representations and settlement-based quashing of a separate FIR did not preserve or revive the challenge. Pension forfeiture resulting from punitive termination was not a continuing wrong permitting this stale challenge.
Issues
- Whether a challenge to retrospective removal could be brought after thirteen years on the assertion that the order was void.
- Whether an unanswered appeal, later representations, quashing of a separate FIR or withholding of pension saved limitation.
Provisions considered
- Section 21(1)(b) and (3), Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985Even assuming the service appeal remained undecided, limitation ran after six months from its filing. Condonation required sufficient cause, which had not been established or found by the Tribunal. (¶¶ 18, 27–28, 37–44)
- Rule 19(i), Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965The removal memorandum considered the conduct leading to the theft conviction and the employee’s written explanation; settlement of the separate embezzlement case did not undo that basis. (¶¶ 9–13, 45–46)
Held
- The Tribunal erred in treating the application as within limitation. Even if the February 2000 appeal was unanswered, the statutory period began after six months; successive representations did not save limitation, and no sufficient cause for the prolonged delay had been established. (¶¶ 27–28, 37–39, 43)
- An order alleged to be void must still be challenged through the proper remedy within limitation. The precedent relied on by the Tribunal did not permit challenges at any time, and retrospective operation could not be contested through this thirteen-year-delayed application. (¶¶ 33, 40–43)
- Withholding pension consequent on punitive termination was not a continuing cause of action. Separate entitlement to gratuity or provident fund notwithstanding removal had not been raised or considered below and could not first be determined in this appeal. (¶¶ 32, 44)
- Quashing of the separate FIR followed compensation and settlement, rather than a finding that it disclosed no offence. It created no fresh cause to challenge removal based on the theft conviction; the High Court judgment was affirmed. (¶¶ 35, 37, 45–47)
Result
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment setting aside the Tribunal’s relief affirmed. The belated removal challenge failed on limitation; separate gratuity/provident-fund entitlement not determined for the first time on appeal.