(1) LEAVE granted. (2) THE appellant Shri Ishwar Singh was appointed as Baillif in the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi on 12/05/1975. The appellant was served with a memorandum dated 5/06/1985 wherein it was alleged that the appellant had taken Rs. 1,500.00 from one Ganeshi Lal Kapur in Recovery Case No. 462/83-84 and issued a kachha receipt dated 7/04/1984 and the appellant did not deposit the amount with the Cashier of the Recovery Branch. The appellant replied to the same by his letter dated 19/06/1985 denying the charge and he stated that he did not take Rs. 1,500.00 from Ganeshi Lal Kapur in Case No. 462/83-84 for deposit. (3) SHRI Ganeshi Lal Kapur wrote a letter dated 21/06/1985 to the Deputy Registrar staling that he had advanced the aforesaid sum of Rs 1500 to the appellant as a personal loan and that they are old friends. He further stated that he had some misunderstanding with the appellant which is the reason why he had lodged the complaint. He withdrew the complaint since the misunderstanding has been removed and the amount has been received in full. He has also stated that he has no complaint against him. (4) IN spite of the aforesaid withdrawal of the complaint on 21/06/1985 the Registrar issued an order placing the appellant under suspension on 26/06/1985. (5) ON 22/08/1985, an office memorandum was issued by the Registrar informing the appellant that an inquiry would be held against him. (6) THE appellant denied the charges made against him, still the inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer, Shri D.S. Pandit submitted a report on the basis of which the appellant was removed from service by order dated 26/10/1986 purportedly under Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. (7) THE appellant filed an appeal to the Registrar against the said order. The said appeal was however, dismissed. (8) THE appellant filed O.A. No. 222 of 1988 before the Central Administrative tribunal which came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 21/12/1990. (9) A review petition was filed before the tribunal which dismissed the same. (10) HENCE the appellant filed the instant Special Leave Petition before this court which has been registered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5531 of 1991. (11) IT is relevant to set out Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: "19. (9) A review petition was filed before the tribunal which dismissed the same. (10) HENCE the appellant filed the instant Special Leave Petition before this court which has been registered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5531 of 1991. (11) IT is relevant to set out Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965: "19. Special procedure in certain cases.Notwithstanding any- thing contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18: (I) where any penalty is imposed on a government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on criminal charge, or * * * THE disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit: * * * PROVIDED that the commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule." (12) IT is, therefore, apparent that the said rule can be invoked only in cases where the government servant has been convicted in a criminal case. In the instant case there was no criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and as such he cannot be removed under the said Rule 19(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. (13) THE case of the appellant, i.e. the employee in substance is that the amount of Rs. 1,500.00 was taken by him, in fact, as a loan from Shri Ganeshi Lal Kapur with whom he has long acquaintance. However, if intimation was not given to the authorities concerned, the same was not the intention. (14) WE have heard counsel for the parties and we have also very carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Adminis- tration that the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and the order made for removal of the appellant from service of the Cooperative Societies is not bad or illegal. Though, of course, he says that, may be that the appellant took the amount in question as a loan from Shri Ganeshi Lal Kapur and in that case he should intimate the same to the authorities concerned. The learned counsel on the other side, however, contended that there is no question of any misappropriation or temporary retention of the amount, i.e. Rs. The learned counsel on the other side, however, contended that there is no question of any misappropriation or temporary retention of the amount, i.e. Rs. 1,500.00 which is alleged to have been paid by Shri Ganeshi Lal Kapur towards liquidation of his loan to the. Cooperative Societies, and more so, because Shri Ganeshi Lal Kapur in his application to the authorities concerned stated that the money which he paid to the appellant was, in fact, an advance to the appellant for treatment of his wife who was in the family way, and as such, he sub- sequently made an application to the authorities concerned withdrawing the complaint and staling that the money that was advanced by him to the appellant was actually a loan and not a payment towards repayment of his loan to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. (15) CONSIDERING all aspects of the matter, we think it just and fair to dispose of the appeal by directing the authorities concerned to permit the appellant to join forthwith in the post which he was holding at the time when the impugned order was passed for removal from service, in accordance with rules. The counsel for the appellant, however, states before us that he does not claim any arrears of wages from the date of his removal from the service till he is reinstated by the authorities concerned. We also make it clear that for the purpose of retiral benefit, con- tinuity of service will be taken into consideration and also other benefits for which he is entitled to, under the extant service rules. In other words, the appellant be treated as continuing in service except for the benefit of payment of any back wages during the period he was not in service. The appeal is, thus, disposed of.