2023 (7) TMI 1350 - HC - Indian Laws

HC quashes tribunal order for entertaining application filed eight years after punishment order attained finality

The HC quashed the Odisha Administrative Tribunal's order dated 27.10.2016 in O.A. No. 1605 of 2015, finding it legally unsustainable. The tribunal had ... Quashing the punishment order - time limitation - Doctrine of Reasonableness - Direction to petitioners to prepare the pension papers of the deceased Govt. employee in accordance with the relevant rules and draw and disburse such pension and other pre-retiral dues admissible to the applicant/legal heirs of the deceased Govt. employee - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, if the reasons are candid and convincing, then the Courts are empowered to exercise its power of discretion for the purpose of condoning the delay. Power of discretion is a double-edged weapon. Thus, discretionary powers are to be exercised cautiously and uniformly so as to avoid any prejudice to either of the parties. Exercise of power of discretion if made excessively, it would defeat the purpose and object of the law of limitation. The Courts are expected not to travel beyond the permissible extent, so as to condone the enormous delay in a routine or mechanical manner. Power of discretion is to be exercised to mitigate the injustice, if any occurred to the litigants. The law of limitation has got a definite reasoning and logic. Various time limitations prescribed under many statutes are adopting the “Doctrine of Reasonableness”. The principles of reasonableness would be adopted with reference to the nature of litigations to be instituted. Various time limits are prescribed for civil litigations, appeals and other varieties of litigations, considering various factors and by applying the doctrine of reasonableness. Thus, the law of limitation became substantive and to be followed scrupulously in all circumstances and on exceptional cases, the delay is to be condoned, if the reasons are genuine and acceptable. In absence of the same, the objection raised by the petitioner is well justified and the consequential order passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and liable to be set aside. The order of punishment was been passed on 07.04.2007 and, as such, there was no valid and justifiable reason to entertain such original application after long lapse of more than eight years. More so, neither the deceased government employee nor the opposite party no.1 preferred appeal against the said order of punishment. Thereby, the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority reached its finality, as a result of which recovery of amount of Rs.3,56,185/- has been sought to be made from the DCRG and pension of the deceased government employee. Once the order of punishment reached its finality, the tribunal could not have passed the order impugned stating inter alia that this is neither a sanction nor an order of the Government as per the stipulation in Rule-7 of the Pension Rules. If the original application itself is barred by limitation and this question was raised before the tribunal, it is incumbent upon the tribunal to pass order on the question of limitation instead of passing the order on merits. The order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 1605 of 2015 cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Since the deceased government employee died long since and an outstanding dues of Rs.3,56,185/- has been determined against him, retaining such amount, any other pensionary benefits as due and admissible to the Government employee, shall be paid to opposite party no.1 to resolve the dispute for all times to come. The writ petition stands disposed of. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Tribunal's order quashing the punishment order.2. Competence of the authority imposing the penalty.3. Applicability of Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.4. Limitation period for filing the original application.Summary:1. Validity of the Tribunal's Order Quashing the Punishment Order:The State and its functionaries challenged the Tribunal's order dated 27.10.2016, which quashed the punishment order dated 07.04.2007. The Tribunal directed the petitioners to prepare the pension papers and disburse the pension and pre-retiral dues to the legal heirs of the deceased Government employee within four months.2. Competence of the Authority Imposing the Penalty:The disciplinary proceeding against the deceased Government employee was initiated on 26.08.1989 and concluded on 07.04.2007, awarding a penalty of recovery of Rs.3,56,185/- from the DCRG, pension, and T.I. The opposite party contended that the penalty was imposed by an incompetent authority and without consulting the Orissa Public Service Commission, which is a statutory requirement. The Tribunal found that the punishment order was passed by an incompetent authority in contravention of Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.3. Applicability of Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992:The opposite party argued that the proceeding should have been converted to action under Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, which reserves the right of the Government to withhold pension or gratuity. The Tribunal agreed, quashing the punishment order and directing the State-petitioners to pay the legitimate claim.4. Limitation Period for Filing the Original Application:The State contended that the original application was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The punishment order was communicated on 07.04.2007, but the original application was filed on 22.06.2015, after more than eight years. The Tribunal did not consider the question of limitation, which the High Court found to be a mandatory condition that was overlooked.Conclusion:The High Court quashed the Tribunal's order dated 27.10.2016, emphasizing that the original application was barred by limitation. The High Court directed that the outstanding dues of Rs.3,56,185/- be deducted from the pensionary benefits, and the balance amount be released to the opposite party no.1. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.