SURESHBHAI CHUNILAL PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed in this petition to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1-7-2004 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal ,Ahmedabad Bench,Ahmedabad (for short ?the Tribunal?) in O.A. no.185/2003 whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner only on the ground of limitation.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Sorting Assistant at SRO, Senior Division, Surat. He was served with a chargesheet dated 1-6-1989 for a serious charge of misappropriation of amounts. Regular Departmental Inquiry was held and the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 29-4-1991 found the petitioner guilty for the charges levelled against him. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority by his order dated 20-11-1992 removed the petitioner from service, against which appeal was preferred which was also dismissed by the appellate authority, so as the revision by the revisional authority. That was done in 1994.

(3.) The petitioner was also criminally prosecuted. Criminal complaint was filed against him on 18-2-1987 for offence of misappropriation and the chargesheet before the criminal court was filed on 15-6-1988. However, there was undue delay on the part of the Criminal Court in deciding the case against the petitioner-accused and after a period of 14 years i.e. on 14-8-2002, he was acquitted by the Criminal Court as the witnesses turned hostile. On being acquitted, he made representation to the respondent-authority on 10-12-2002 for reinstating him in service, but his representation was rejected. Therefore, he approached the learned Tribunal by way of original application in 2003 and challenged the impugned order of dismissal passed in 1992 which was dismissed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority in 1994. On behalf of the respondent-authorities preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of the application on the ground of limitation. Relying on the Honourable Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Udam SinghKamal & Ors. 2000(2) SLJ 90, it was submitted that the Tribunal cannot decide the matter on merits. The learned Tribunal accepted the contention and rejected the application on the ground of gross delay and laches as it was of the opinion that the order of acquittal passed after a long time will not confer any right to the applicant to challenge the departmental proceedings and the orders passed in it. This order is challenged in this petition by the petitioner.