Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Shri Premchand Balaram Pardeshi, was appointed as Guard – Class III in April 1980. He was placed under suspension on 25.11.1992 due to registration of Crime No.296/1992 against him and three others for offences under Sections 302, 116, 120(B), 201 IPC, Arms Act, and TADA Act. The Respondent No.2, Inspector General of Prison, Yerawada Central Prison, issued an order dismissing the Petitioner on 6/2/1993 under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, recording that it was not practicable to hold a departmental enquiry. The criminal case proceeded to trial, and the Petitioner was discharged along with the other accused by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. On 3rd January 2000, the Petitioner made a representation for reinstatement, which was not acceded to. He then filed Original Application No.467 of 2000 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, seeking quashing of the dismissal order. Since the application was filed after a delay of over 7 years, he also filed Misc. Application No.272 of 2000 for condonation of delay. The Petitioner relied on the fact that the Tribunal had quashed the dismissal orders of his co-accused S D Kadam and Garewal after their acquittal. The Respondents opposed the applications. The Tribunal dismissed both the Original Application and the Misc. Application by judgment dated 23rd February 2001, holding the application barred by limitation and refusing to condone the delay. The Petitioner then filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Tribunal's order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Tribunal had correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay. The Court noted that the Petitioner had not explained the delay from 1993 to 2000, and mere acquittal in the criminal case or grant of relief to co-accused did not constitute sufficient cause. The Court found no perversity or error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Dismissal without Enquiry - Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India - Dismissal order passed dispensing with departmental enquiry on ground of not being practicable - Petitioner dismissed on 6/2/1993 under Article 311(2)(b) - Challenge after discharge in criminal case on 3/1/2000 - Delay of over 7 years - Tribunal dismissed application as barred by limitation - Held that the Tribunal rightly refused to condone delay as Petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the entire period of delay (Paras 1-6). B) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Sufficient cause - Petitioner relied on acquittal in criminal case and similar relief granted to co-accused - However, Petitioner did not explain delay from 1993 to 2000 - Held that mere pendency of criminal case or acquittal does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay in challenging dismissal order (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was justified in dismissing the Petitioner's Original Application as barred by limitation and refusing to condone the delay of over 7 years in challenging the dismissal order dated 6/2/1993.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Tribunal's order dated 23rd February 2001 which dismissed the Original Application as barred by limitation and refused to condone the delay.
Law Points
- Limitation
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution of India
- Dismissal without departmental enquiry
- Acquittal in criminal case not automatic ground for reinstatement
