TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (9) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he plaintiff on 19-9-1966. The plaintiff gave notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 17-6-1969 and filed his suit on 30th September, 1969, asking for a declaration that the order of dismissal was inoperative and he continued to be in service. This suit has been dismissed in the Courts below on acceptance of the defence plea that it had not been filed within three years from the date when the cause of action first arose, as required under Article 58 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. When this appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Goel v. The Municipal Board, Kanpur & Ors. (1959 SCR 1148) in support of the contention that the suit was barred by limitation. The Division Bench extracted a passage from Goel's judgment where it said : "The result is no doubt unfortunate for the appellant, because the trial court found in his favour in regard to his plea of wrongful dismissal. If he had only brought the suit within the period prescribed by Section 326 of the Act, he might possibly have got some relief from the Court. He, however, chose to wait till the decision of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this aspect, Bhagwati, J. who spoke for the Court, said : "The initial difficulty in the way of the appellant, however, is that departmental enquiries even though they culminate in decisions on appeals or revision cannot be equated with proceedings before the regular courts of law." 6. Reliance was placed on the observations of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammed Nooh.(1958 SCR 595) where it has been said: '...an order of dismissal passed on a departmental enquiry by an officer in the department and an order passed by another officer next higher in rank dismissing an appeal therefrom and an order rejecting an application for revision by the head of the department can hardly be equated with any propriety with decrees made in a civil suit under the Code of Civil Procedure by the Court of first instance and the decree dismissing the appeal therefrom by an appeal court and the order dismissing the revision petition by a yet higher court,...because the departmental tribunals of the first instance or on appeal or revision are not regular courts manned by persons trained in law although they may have the trappings of the courts of law'. and the Court proceede....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding at the commencement of the Constitution and the revisional order being after the Constitution came into force, the writ petition would be maintainable. The majority, as also Bose, J.who otherwise differed, agreed that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was not retrospective. The majority opinion, however, was that it would not be correct to say that the order of dismissal made on April 20, 1948, merged in the appellate order dated May 7, 1949, and both the orders in one course merged in the revisional order of April 22, 1950. The original order of dismissal was operative on its own strength. Bose J., however, observed : "I see no reason why any narrow or ultra technical restrictions should be placed on them. Justice should, in my opinion, be administered in our Courts in a common-sense liberal way and be broad-based on human values rather than on narrow and restricted considerations hedged round with hairsplitting technicalities......The final order was passed after the Constitution on April 22, 1950. It is true that if it had been passed before the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950, the petitioner would have had no remedy in the Courts. But t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat case would not apply to the facts of the present case." The view expressed by Wanchoo, J. in Rungta's case meets with our approval. In Rungta's case this Court ultimately held that the order of the State Government had merged into the order of the Central Government and the High Court was, therefore, right in its view that it had no jurisdiction. 9. The next Constitution Bench decision of this Court is that of Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd. [1963 (2) SCR 563] where this Court observed : "The question, therefore, turns on whether the order of the original authority becomes merged in the order of the appellate authority even where the appellate authority merely dismisses the appeal without any modification of the order of the original authority. It is obvious that when an appeal is made, the appellate authority can do one of three things, namely, (i) it may reverse the order under appeal, (ii) it may modify that order, and (iii) it may merely dismiss the appeal and thus confirm the order without any modification. It is not disputed that in the first two cases where the order of the original authority is either reversed or modified i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....everal States the Conduct Rules for Government servants require the administrative remedies to be exhausted before the disciplinary orders can be challenged in court. Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides : "20.(1) A Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances." The Rules relating to disciplinary proceedings do provide for an appeal against the orders of punishment imposed on public servants. Some Rules provide even a second appeal or a revision. The purport of Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act is to give effect to the Disciplinary Rules and the exhaustion of the remedies available thereunder is a condition precedent to maintaining of claims under the Administrative Tribunals Act, Administrative Tribunals have been set up for Government servants of the centre and several States have already set up such Tribunals under the Act for the employees of the respective States. The law is soon going to get crystallised on the line laid down under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired. (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or the Governor of a State or to any other functionary shall not be deemed to be one of the remedies which are available unless the applicant had elected to submit such memorial." 15. We are of the view that the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months' period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle. 16. It is appropriate to notice the provision regarding limit....