- (1.) This case has a chequred history. Briefly the facts are that the respondent No. 1 (Kailash Chandra Beherwal) was a Labour Enforcement Officer. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent No. 1 on 1.12.1980 and consequently he was dismissed from service on 8.10.1982. Challenging the same, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the competent authority on 6.7.1984. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 1 preferred writ petition No. 5244 of 1985, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and registered as Transfer Application No. 998 of 1986. By order dated 15.12.1987, the Tribunal allowed the Transfer Application and set aside the dismissal order of the respondent No. 1 dated 8.10.1982 leaving it open to the petitioners to hold departmental proceedings in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto on 4.1.1988 the respondent No. 1 was allowed to join his services.
(2.) Then started the second innings and within a few weeks of his reinstatement on 28.1.1988 the respondent No. 1 was placed under suspension with effect from 8.10.1982. Challenging the said order of suspension, the respondent No. 1 preferred an Original Application No. 206 of 1988 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 12.5.1988. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No. 1 preferred a Special Leave Petition No. 8876 of 1988 before the Apex Court. By order dated 1.2.1989, Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent No. 1.
(3.) The matter did not rest at peace and third round began and on 7.4.1989, which was barely three weeks before the retirement of the respondent No. 1 (which was on 30.4.1989), he was again dismissed from service. Challenging the said order, the respondent No. 1 filed Original Application No. 278 of 1991 before the Tribunal. The said Original Application No. 278 of 1991 was allowed by the Tribunal by detailed reasoned order dated 18.10.1996. The operative portions contained in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the said order are quoted below: 18. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 7.4.1988 by which the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the applicant is quashed. We see no need to specifically quash the appellate order, which was passed during the pendency of this application since in any case it is a non-est, we have noted that the applicant was due to retire within a very short time from the date of his dismissal from service. In these circumstances, we give the following directions: (1) The applicant shall be deemed to have continued in service till the date of his superannuation as if he was never dismissed from service. (2) He shall be paid pay and allowance for the period from the date of the aforesaid dismissal till the date of his retirement within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order. (3) He shall be entitled to all terminal benefits, which is available to an employee, who retires from service on superannuation. (4) He shall be paid arrears of pension within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 19. Keeping, however, in view the seriousness of charges levelled against the applicant, we grant liberty to the respondents to proceed de-novo against the applicant from the stage of enquiry with a view to taking action against him, if so warranted in terms of Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) rules. For the purposes of the said rule, the de-novo proceeding shall be deemed to be in continuance of the proceeding initiated against the applicant while he was in service, in terms of the provision contained in sub-rule 2(a) of Rule 9 ibid.;