MAHAVIR SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.05.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA 1572/2012. By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner's said Original Application has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

(2.) THE facts leading up to the present petition are that the applicant while working as a driver at DTC depot-II, Hari Nagar, was proceeded departmentally. By an order dated 21.01.2003, passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner was imposed the punishment of stoppage of next two increments with cumulative effect. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority which came to be rejected by an order dated 17.02.2003. The petitioner did not do anything for the next seven years. On 27.07.2010, the petitioner purportedly filed a second appeal by addressing it to the Chairman, DTC. A communication was sent to the petitioner by the Depot Manager of the respondent on 24.08.2011, which was to the following effect:-

(3.) THE Tribunal, however, did not agree with the submission and contention of the petitioner. The Tribunal took the view that the final order that was passed in the petitioner's case was that of the appellate authority dated 17.02.2003. The petitioner had one year from that date to approach the Tribunal. Since the petitioner did not do so within the period of one year and since he also had not sought any condonation of delay, the said Original Application was clearly barred by time in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 21 (1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Tribunal had also placed reliance on the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of S. S. Rathore v. State of M. P: AIR 1990 SC 10 and C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining & Another: (2008) 10 SCC 115, wherein the Supreme Court held that repeated representations would not extend the period of limitation.