GHANSHYAM YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.C Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the averments made in the writ petition, its annexures, counter and rejoinder affidavit exchanged between the parties.

(2.) From the perusal of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated May 28, 2004 we find that the Tribunal has rejected the original application preferred by the petitioner both on the ground of limitation as also on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in support thereof and the said application and the affidavit were not taken into account by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has wrongly mentioned that no such application has been filed by the petitioner. Along with writ petition, the petitioner has filed certified copy of the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act as well as affidavit filed in support thereof as Annexure-6. It is clear that certified copy of any document can be issued by the Tribunal only when the document is on record otherwise there was no occasion for issuing certified copy of any document. This application appears to have been left out from being considered by the Tribunal while recording the finding therefore, the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be supported from the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if the application was to be dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of being barred by limitation, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into the merits of the case. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not admit of any doubt. It is the bounden duty of any Court, authority or Tribunal to decide firstly the question of limitation and if it comes to the conclusion that the application was barred by limitation, there was no occasion to proceed any further and decide the matter on merits.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that before the Tribunal specific plea was raised on behalf of the applicant that the enquiry officer had exonerated or found some of the charges having not been proved. If the disciplinary authority disagreed with the said proposition, he ought to have given reason while calling upon explanation/reply from the petitioner. This plea was specifically raised and referred to by the Tribunal in paragraph 4 of its order but we find that the said plea has not been dealt with by the Tribunal.