Full Judgment
M.L. Chauhan:
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Telephone Operator Grade I, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for use of abusive language, physical assault at his superiors and obstruction in discharge of duties, which was duly inquired into and proved during the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 7.1.1998 (Annexure A-19/II) whereby the charges against the applicant were held to be proved. Based upon the findings given by the inquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of termination from service vide order dated 15.9.2001 (Annexure A-2/V). However, the appellate authority, on the appeal being filed by the applicant, set aside the termination order dated 15.9.2001 and vide order dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure 2/IV) imposed the punishment of demotion in rank from Telephone Operator Grade I to the next below post, i.e., Telephone Operator Grade II.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities, the applicant filed WP (C) No.17566/2006 before the High Court, which was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 28.11.2006, as it was stated before it that the revision petition is pending before the Chairman-cum-MD, ITDC for the last four years and he has not decided the appeal till date. Based on this statement, the High Court ordered that the revisional authority will decide the revision in accordance with law within a period of six weeks and communicate the order to the applicant. The High Court in the said writ petition also directed the respondents to consider the application of the applicant for promotion in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order passed by the High Court, the competent reviewing authority, i.e., Director (Finance) passed the impugned order dated 10.1.2007 (Annexure A-2/III), thereby maintaining the order passed by the appellate authority and the review petition was accordingly decided.
3. Now the applicant has filed the present OA, thereby praying for quashing the orders dated 3.9.2010 (Annexure A-2/I) and 11.1.2011 (Annexure A-2/II) based on the orders passed by the disciplinary, appellate and reviewing authorities, as noticed above.
4. Notice of this application was given to the respondents, who have filed their reply affidavit wherein the respondents have stated that the matter does not fall within the purview of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as the applicant, who belongs to the category of workman, has to approach the Industrial Tribunal. Hence the applicant is falsely making allegation of unfair labour practice being violation of certain articles of Constitution of India.
5. The respondents have further stated that the present petition is gross abuse of the process of the law, as the applicant is in habit of making false and frivolous complaint to harass the senior officers of the respondents and he had also made false and frivolous complaint to SC/ST Commission, which did not find any substance in his allegations. It is also stated that the applicant has repeated those allegations, which are entirely false and is a handiwork of wild imagination of the applicant to coerce and pressurize the respondents, which is also demonstrated by the fact that despite being ineligible for the post of Telephone Supervisor Grade II, he had applied for the same and on information of his ineligibility he has preferred this application, which is neither maintainable in law or on facts of the case. According to the respondents, as per daily order dated 28.8.2010, only those persons can be promoted as Supervisor Grade II, who fulfill the eligibility criteria of three years such as Senior Telephone Operator Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.5310-8360.
6. According to the respondents, the applicant is not fulfilling the said eligibility criteria. Besides, the respondents have also justified their action on merits.
7. The applicant has not filed any rejoinder despite being granted the opportunity for the same.
8. We have heard the applicant, who was present in person and learned counsel for respondents and have also perused the material placed on record.
9. The main grievance raised by the applicant is regarding the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed by the authorities pursuant to such disciplinary proceedings. Admittedly, the services of the applicant were terminated by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.9.2001 (Annexure A-2/V), which order was modified by the appellate authority vide order dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure 2/IV) and the applicant was demoted to the lower post of Telephone Operator Grade II. Thereafter the matter was carried to the High Court and the High Court vide order dated 28.11.2006 directed the revisional authority to decide the revision petition of the applicant in accordance with law. Admittedly, the revisional authority passed the order dated 10.1.2007 (Annexure A-2/III) maintaining the order of the appellate authority.
10. The applicant has filed this OA on 12.5.2011 after a period of about four years four months from the date of passing of the said order by the reviewing authority in compliance with the directions given by the High Court. The applicant has not given any explanation as to why he has not approached this Tribunal within the time prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
11. The applicant, who was present in person, submitted that after passing the order dated 10.1.2007, he filed contempt petition before the High Court, as the reviewing petition filed by the applicant was to be decided by the Chairman-cum-MD, ITDC whereas the order has been passed by the Director (Finance), being the reviewing authority, thus, his reviewing petition has not been correctly decided in terms of the directions given by the High Court.
12. The respondents in their reply affidavit have also stated that the contempt petition was dismissed by the High Court. As can be seen from the order dated 3.9.2010, it is recorded that the contempt petition filed by the applicant before the High Court for not complying with the order of the High Court was not even admitted by the High Court and dismissed the same. When the applicant was confronted as to when the said contempt petition was disposed of by the High Court, it was stated by him that the same was disposed of on 25.7.2007 but the applicant could not give any explanation as to why he had not approached this Tribunal immediately thereafter challenging the validity of the order dated 10.1.2007 (Annexure A-2/III). The applicant in paragraph 3 of the OA has stated that the limitation has to be computed w.e.f. 3.9.2011 and 11.1.2011 when his representations were rejected. From the material placed on record, it reveals that the order dated 3.9.2010 (Annexure A-2/I) has been passed pursuant to the representations made by the applicant on 14.6.2010 and 30.8.2010 addressed to Cand MD, ITDC to review the revision appeal. As already stated above, the revision of the applicant was decided on 10.1.2007 whereas the representations were made by him on 14.6.2010 and 30.8.2010 after a long lapse of more than three and a half years. Thus, the applicant has not given any explanation as to why he has not approached this Tribunal within the period prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. We are of the view that the present OA is hopelessly time barred and the applicant has neither given any valid explanation nor moved any application for condonation of delay.
13. Accordingly, we are of the view that the present OA is required to be dismissed on the ground of limitation being time barred. Suffice it to say that the rejection of subsequent representations will not extend the cause of action. Law on this point is no longer res integra. At this stage, we may notice two decisions of the Apex Court, namely, Union of India and others v. M.R. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 and D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India and others (Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7956/2011) decided on 7.3.2011.
14. The second grievance raised by the applicant is that he should be promoted to the post of Telephone Supervisor Grade II. As can be seen from the order dated 11.1.2011 (Annexure A-2/II), the applicant was earlier apprised by the competent authority vide communication dated 19.12.2006 that he cannot be permitted to appear for the interview for the post of Telephone Supervisor Grade II, as he did not meet the eligibility criteria. This order further reveals that request of the applicant was again examined in the light of the daily order dated 28.9.2010 and was rejected on the same ground.
15. The respondents have also stated in their reply affidavit that in terms of daily order dated 28.9.2010, following eligibility criteria is prescribed:
“The candidate should be having 03 years satisfactory service as Sr. Telephone Operator Gd-I in the pay scale of Rs.5310-8360.”
16. Admittedly, the applicant was initially working as Telephone Operator Grade I was reverted to the post of Telephone Operator Grade II, which post the applicant is still holding. Thus, admittedly, he being not the holder of the post of Senior Telephone Operator Grade I cannot be permitted to appear in the interview for the post of Telephone Supervisor Grade II. Thus, according to us, the applicant has not made out any case for grant of the said relief.
17. Accordingly, we see no infirmity in the action of the respondents whereby the representations of the applicant dated 14.6.2010 and 30.8.2010 have been rejected vide order dated 3.9.2010.
18. For the foregoing reasons, the OA is dismissed without any order as to costs.