RAM NIWAS Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 28.4.2010 (P-6), passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), dismissing the original application on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is appropriate to mention that the applicant- petitioner had challenged order dated 4.10.1996 (A-1), dismissing him from service under Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Class, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, 'the Rules'). The subsequent order dated 21.4.2008 (A-2), passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi, was also impugned before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal dismissed the original application by observing that there is delay of 12 years from the date of the order of termination dated 4.10.1996 (A-1). It has further been held that against the order dated 4.10.1996 the revision petition was filed on 18.11.2006 after more than 10 years of dismissal of the petitioner from service. According to the Tribunal such a revision petition was not maintainable because it was filed beyond the statutory period and it would not give cause of action to the petitioner.

(2.) Having dismissed the original application on the ground of delay and laches, the Tribunal proceeded to uphold the aforesaid orders on merit as well, which is discernible from para 8 and the same reads as under :-

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal with regard to delay in filing the original application does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the same is sustainable although on different grounds. In that regard it would be necessary to read Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for brevity, 'the Act'), which is as under :-