BAGICHA SINGH Vs. GOVT. OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the three captioned petitions as common questions of law and fact are involved in them which can conveniently decided by a common order. The facts are taken from CWP No. 7002 of 2012 for convenience and the parties would be referred by their status in this petition. Multiple punishments inflicted on the petitioner by disciplinary orders spread over the period from 1982 to 2002 were assailed in appeal before the Secretary, Department of Transport, Punjab who has dismissed the appeal as time barred by order dated 6th August, 2009 on appeal filed in the year 2007. The delay in approaching court in the year 2012 ranges from ten years to three decades from the original punishment orders which by any standards is enormous. Besides, the appeal was filed after about 5 years of the last adverse orders passed in the year 2002 which is also inordinately delayed without showing sufficient cause to make a belated approach in preferring the appeal.

(2.) I find no reasonable ground to hold that the decision of the appellate authority is incorrect or suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and would apply to these cases the law laid down in State of Punjab v/s. Gurdev Singh, : A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2219 that limitation runs even against an adverse order which is void even arguendo they were so, but are not. If the limitation in bringing a civil suit to challenge such an order has run out it is prudent for the writ court not to interfere in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the proposition, of the Constitution Bench authority of the Supreme Court holding that: "It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art. 226 can be measured."

(3.) At this stage the counsel submits that if there are adverse orders against which remedies are not barred by delay and laches and rule of limitation or are yet not finalized and a civil remedy is still available or in cases where the rules provide for condoning delay, then the decision maker should still consider this aspect in accordance with law then this order should not preclude judicial redress. If such is the position then those orders will be dealt with in accordance with law.