STATE OF M P Vs. S S BHADAURIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24-8-1998 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 777/1998. The respondents had filed this Original Application, which came up for hearing on 24-8-1998. On behalf of the State Shri P.D. Agarwal, Panel Lawyer had appeared and reply was not filed by him. The Tribunal has specifically noted that reply has not been filed. There is no use to give more time to the respondents to file reply, as the facts of this case are not in dispute. The Tribunal, therefore, in view of this statement proceeded to decide the matter and held that before initiating enquiry after the retirement of the applicant, prior sanction of the Governor had not been taken. The order initiating departmental proceedings against respondent S.S. Bhadoriya was quashed. The Tribunal, however, in the impugned order gave liberty to the State to initiate such enquiry afresh after removing the infirmities.

(2.) Thereafter, the State filed M.A. No. 251/1998, i.e., review petition, on 3-10-1998. This review petition was barred by time. No application for condonation of delay was filed. The Tribunal issued notice and thereupon reply was filed. In the order passed on 4-5- 2000 in the review petition, the Tribunal has noted that the review application has apparently been filed after expiry of the presecribed period so it is barred by limitation because the impugned order has been passed on 24-8- 1998 in O.A. No. 777/1998 while the review petition has been filed on 3-10-1998 seeking the review of the said order. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. The cause of delay stated in the petition and in the affidavit is that the Panel Lawyer did not inform the result of the O.A. in time and the facts came to their knowledge only on 23-9- 1998. Shri J.D. Suryawanshi, learned Government Advocate in usual fairness informed that the earlier Panel Lawyer, who appeared on 24- 8-1998 and the counsel, who appeared on 4- 5-2000, is the same.

(3.) In the circumstances, in our opinion, there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal. Even otherwise the Tribunal has considered and has found that,no charge-sheet was served on 29-7-1997, as stated in the review petition and a blank envelope was handed over to the employee. The Tribunal has further noted that on perusal of the papers as submitted by the applicant alongwith this review petition, it is apparent that a sealed cover including charge-sheet was served on the non-applicant just before his retirement. But, the receipt does not disclose that what matter were kept in the envelope and served on the applicant. It is surprising that why the applicants have filed this review petiton when they have a right to initiate enquiry after obtaining proper sanction from the Governor and they are not exercising such discretion.