S N SESHADRI Vs. LIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions under Article 226(1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution of India (42nd Amendment) the petitioners have sought for quashing the orders of their dismissal by issue of writs of certiorari and have claimed re instatement to the service and consequential benefits. As these writ petitions give rise to common questions of law and facts they axe heard together and disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The three petitioners were working as Development Officers under the 1st respondent. A domestic enquiry was Initiated against them for proposing insurance for non existent proponents and for forgery of -signatures of proponents. The 4th respondent held inquiry and found them guilty and the 3rd respondent accepted the findings and imposed the punishment of dismissal. The petitioners filed appeals against the orders of dismissal before the 2nd respondent who dismissed the appeals. The memorial sent by them to the 1st respondent was also dismissed. Thereafter these petitioners filed writ petitions in W.P.Nos.1332, 2191 and 1390 of 1967 before this Court. Those writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by a common judgment dated 8-6-1971 by a Division Bench observing that "there appears to be little doubt that the orders of the appellate authority prima facie reveal grave failure on his part to obey the provisions of the regulations" and this Court declined to interfere with the order of dismissal in view of the law as then enunciated by the Supreme Court in Executive Committee of U. P. State Ware Housing Corrm v. Chandrdkiran Thyagi AIR. 1970 SC. 1244. and Indian Airlines Corrm v. Sukhdev Rai AIR. 1971 SC. 1328, . Thereafter memorials were filed before the 2nd resnondent as provided under the Staff Regulations, which ended in their rejection. In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram the Supreme Court overruled the earlier decisions holdin that the staff regulations were statutory in nature and are amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court. Thereafter the petitioners filed these writ petitions before this Court challenging the order of dismissal.

(3.) Before considering these writ petitions on merits, it is necessary to dispose of the preliminary obiections raised by the learned Advocate for the respondents. The preliminary objections are : No.1 That the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of laches or delay in filing the writ petitions. No.2 That the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the principles of res judicata. Mr.V.C. Brahmarayappa, learned Advocate for the respondents in support of the 1st preliminary point urged that the order of dismissal of the petitioners was made on 13-12-1966 and it was confirmed by the appellate authority on 15-7-1967 and these writ petitions filed on 1-3-1976 after ten years suffer from laches or delay. Further, he urged that even a remedy in a Civil Court for a declaration should have been within the period of three years and when the remedy of adjudication of civil rights is barred by limitation, the petitioners could not invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner have no valid ground against the bar of limitation and the writ petitions must fail on that score.