Shri R P Singh vs Union Of India

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant was issued a charge memo way back on 25.05.1989, wherein acts of fraudulent submission of bills and making fake claims were alleged. The applicant submitted his reply to the same. Not satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority appointed the inquiry officer, who, in turn, submitted his report, holding that the charges are not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, issued a disagreement note. The applicant submitted his detailed reply to the disagreement note. On consideration of the same, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 31.03.1998 imposing the punishment of "reduction to two lower stages in his time scale of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect". The same was challenged before the appellate authority and the appeal was rejected by the Lt. Governor on 23.11.1998.

The applicant filed a review petition under Rule 29 (A) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 24.04.2013 before the President of India. Alleging that the review petition was not being dealt with, he filed O.A. No.928/2015. In addition to seeking a direction to the respondents to dispose of review petition, he has also made a prayer for setting aside of the order passed by the appellate authority, and the disciplinary proceedings. The O.A. was disposed of on 10.03.2015 directing the reviewing authority to pass orders on review petition, within a period of ten weeks.

The C.P. No.613/2015 was also filed complaining that the direction issued in the O.A. was not complied with. An order was passed on the review petition on 31.12.2015. Taking note of the same, the contempt case was closed. This O.A. has been filed challenging the order dated 31.12.2015.

The applicant contends that the reviewing authority did not address the case on merits at all. It was stated that the observation of the reviewing authority that the review petition was filed fifteen years from the date of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, is untenable since no limitation is stipulated under Rule 29 (A) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The respondents filed the counter affidavit opposing the O.A. It is stated that the review petition filed by the applicant was hopelessly barred by limitation since it was filed fifteen years after the order of punishment was passed, and at no stretch of imagination, review petition can be entertained. It is also stated that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority gave reasons in support of their conclusions and the matter, which has attained finality in the year 2008, cannot be re-opened at this stage.

We heard Mr. V S R Krishna, learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Vijendra Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms. Deepika, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in detail.

For all practical purposes, the applicant proceeded as though there is nothing like limitation for him, in the context of availing remedies. The order of punishment was passed way back on 31.03.1998. As properly advised, he availed remedy of appeal and it was rejected on 23.11.1998. If the applicant felt aggrieved by the dismissal of his appeal, he was supposed to avail remedy either by filing a review or an O.A., within the time. It is not as if he was not aware of the order of punishment or the order passed by the appellate authority. He woke up fifteen years after the dismissal of the appeal and filed a review petition in the year 2013. Two years thereafter, he filed the O.A. No.928/2015. It is just un-understandable as to which authority would be willing to entertain a review petition fifteen years after rejection of the appeal. Further, the applicant retired from service in the year 2010.

In a way, the present O.A. discloses the fragility of the proceedings before the Tribunal. Just by making a reference to the review petition dated 24.04.2013 before the President of India, he brought the challenge to the order of penalty order dated 31.03.1998 and appellate order dated 23.11.1998 in the fold of the prayer. Added to that, he also prayed for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings. The registry was required to verify whether the challenge to those proceedings is permissible at that stage. While disposing of the said O.A., the Tribunal made it very clear that it is not at all addressing the merits of the matter and required the competent authority to pass orders on the review petition, within a period of ten weeks.

Things would have been different altogether, had it been a case where the challenge in the O.A. was to the order of punishment or the appellate order and the Tribunal permitted the applicant to file a review petition, instead of canvassing remedies in the Tribunal. In the instant case, the review petition was filed two years before the O.A. was presented. Therefore, it cannot be said that the review was filed on the basis of permission accorded by the Tribunal. It is the applicant, who filed the review on his own accord, after a lapse of fifteen years. Not a word about the limitation or the maintainability of review has been said in the O.A.

The reviewing / competent authority has clearly taken a view that the review petition cannot be entertained since it was filed fifteen years after the order of punishment. The applicant is not able to state as to how the review petition can be maintained after a lapse of such a long period.

In umpteen number of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even where the relevant provision of law does not stipulate limitation for availing any remedy, particularly the one like review petition, it can be availed within a reasonable time, which shall not exceed three years.

Adding finality to issues or disputes is one of the attributes of law.

We do not find any merit in the O.A. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.