MOHAMMAD QUARAMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which is required to be considered is whether the court below was right in taking the view that the suit filed by the deceased- government servant was barred by limitation, having been filed three years after the date of dismissal. The order of dismissal was passed on 24/7/1967. Feeling aggrieved the delinquent filed a review under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963, (Rules) which review was dismissed on 6/12/1967. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the tribunal was wrong in taking the view that the period of limitation began to run from 24/7/1967 when the order of dismissal was passed because the delinquent was entitled to exhaust the departmental remedy and, therefore, at best the period could run against him from 6/12/1967. He further stated that since statutory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code had to be given the period of limitation stood enlarged by further two months. If that period is added the suit filed on 5/2/1971 was clearly in time. We think there is considerable force in this line of reasoning.

(2.) In taking the view that the suit was barred by limitation the tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution bench of this court in Sita Ram Goel v. Municipal Board, Kanpur. That decision was reconsidered and overruled by this court by a larger bench of seven Judges in S. S. Rathore v. State of M. P Briefly stated, the facts of that case were that the delinquent was dismissed from service by the Collector's order of13/1/1966. He preferred an appeal against the said order which appeal was dismissed on 31/8/1966. The order of dismissal of the appeal was communicated to him on 19-9-1966. Thereafter, he gave notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, on 17/6/1969 and instituted the suit on 13/9/1969 for declaration that his dismissal was inoperative. Like here, in that case also, the suit was dismissed on the plea of limitation on the ground that the cause of action first arose as required by Article 58 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 on 13/1/1966. When the matter came up for hearing before a division bench of this court reliance was placed on the decision in Sita Ram case. The division bench observed that Sita Ram case' requires reconsideration. That is how the matter came up before a bench consisting of seven Judges. The larger bench after noticing the relevant provisions of the law as well as the decided cases on the subject concluded in paragraph 18 as under :

(3.) On merits the tribunal came to the conclusion that the principle of natural justice had been violated in that the delinquent was not supplied acopy of the Vigilance Commission Report although it formed part of the record of the enquiry and material which the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration. The tribunal observed that where such a material which the disciplinary authority relies on is not disclosed to the delinquent it must be held that he was denied the opportunity of being heard, meaning thereby that the audi alteram partem rule had been violated. In the present case the tribunal found that the directions to this effect found in the government Memorandum No. 821/services-C/69-8 dated 30/3/1971 had not been adhered to. Had the tribunal not come to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation, it would have allowed the appeal preferred by the delinquent.