(1.) The respondent was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry on a charge of misappropriation. By an order dated 6/8/1988 he was dismissed from service. On appeal the appellate authority while confirming the finding of guilt, reduced the punishment to one of compulsory retirement. The respondent challenged that order before the tribunal. The tribunal allowed the original application on the only ground of not furnishing the enquiry officer's report. Liberty was given for holding a fresh enquiry. The date of the tribunal's order is 9/8/1991. On 4/11/1991, the authorities passed an order staling that in terms of Rule 10 (4 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the respondent shall be deemed to be under suspension pending enquiry with effect from the date of dismissal, i. e. , with effect from 6/8/1988. Against the order dated 4/11/1991 the respondent again approached the tribunal which has allowed the same on 11/6/1992 under the impugned order. This Special Leave Petition has been preferred with a delay of 407 days by the Union of India. We gave notice to the respondent and we have heard the respondent's counsel today.
(2.) So far as the delay is concerned, Mr. Shetye, learned counsel for the respondent, says that there is no proper explanation for the delay of 407 days and that in fact the respondent was reinstated pursuant to the impugned order on 8/10/1992. Only when the respondent took out proceedings for recovery of the arrears that the government appears to have woken up and filed these proceedings. It is also brought to our notice that a fresh enquiry has been held and the respondent has been again punished with compulsory retirement vide an order dated 17/11/1992 against him. He has again approached the tribunal and that matter is pending there.
(3.) We are now concerned only with the validity of the order dated 11/6/19922 and the delay in filing the SLP. Having regard to the nature of the charges and of the facts and circumstances of the case mentioned above, we are inclined to condone the delay. The delay is condoned.