K. V. S Vs. G. C. RAJGOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short issued raised in the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, is whether the revisional jurisdiction could be exercised by an authority without regard to any time limit. The issue has emerged from the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, (Circuit Bench) at Jammu, in OA no. 942- JK of 2010 decided on 27.08.2012.

(2.) The original applicant was found guilty of some charges in a regular departmental enquiry. The Inquiry Officer had submitted his report on 21.04.2006 which was supplied to the original applicant-respondent on 02.05.2006 to enable him to make a representation. After taking into account the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the representation of the original applicant the disciplinary authority passed an order on 16.01.2007, imposing the penalty of reduction of nine stages from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 4100 in the time scale of Rs. 4000-100- 6000 for a period of five years. The original applicant was also not to earn the increments of pay during the period of reduction and on the expiry of that period of reduction it was not to have the effect of postponing the future increment of his pay. The intervening period from 14.02.2003 to 09.10.2003 was treated as dise non for all purposes. The original applicant did not file any appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority. However, the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathanpetitioner no.1, suo moto initiated proceedings for revision under Section 29 (iv) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity the 1965 Rules') and issued show cause notice dated 28.04.2010 to the original applicant. He submitted his reply to the notice. After taking into consideration the reply the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was converted to that of compulsory retirement and recovery of Rs. 60,710/- from him was ordered vide order dated 21.10.2010.

(3.) The question which emerges for consideration is whether the order dated 16.01.2007 could be revised on 21.10.2010. The Tribunal has taken the view that although the petitioner was competent to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Rule 29 (iv) of the 1965 Rules, however, such a power was to be exercised within a reasonable period of three years. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the order, which reads thus:-