- (1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 28.4.2010 (P-6), passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), dismissing the original application on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is appropriate to mention that the applicant- petitioner had challenged order dated 4.10.1996 (A-1), dismissing him from service under Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Class, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity, 'the Rules'). The subsequent order dated 21.4.2008 (A-2), passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi, was also impugned before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal dismissed the original application by observing that there is delay of 12 years from the date of the order of termination dated 4.10.1996 (A-1). It has further been held that against the order dated 4.10.1996 the revision petition was filed on 18.11.2006 after more than 10 years of dismissal of the petitioner from service. According to the Tribunal such a revision petition was not maintainable because it was filed beyond the statutory period and it would not give cause of action to the petitioner.
(2.) Having dismissed the original application on the ground of delay and laches, the Tribunal proceeded to uphold the aforesaid orders on merit as well, which is discernible from para 8 and the same reads as under :- "8. The vital ground taken by the applicant against the impugned order of dismissal from service is that the competent authority did not record detailed reasons to dispense with the enquiry proceedings under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, read with Rule 19(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. On going through the record produced by the respondents we find that detailed reasons for dispensing with the regular enquiry proceedings against the applicant existed and were duly recorded on the file giving numerous instances which certainly reflect the conduct of the applicant requiring his dismissal from service in short of holding a regular inquiry. Such reasons and satisfaction of the Competent Authority have also been mentioned in nut shell in the impugned order of dismissal of the applicant from services. Annexure-1. Thus on the basis of such reasons recorded in writing once the Disciplinary Authority felt satisfied under provisions of Rule 19(ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 under powers of judicial review, this Tribunal has no authority and jurisdiction to override the satisfaction of the competent authority to take a different view and to hold that the impugned order suffers any such lacuna. The decision does not appear to have been taken because of some whim or ipse or on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority. Such pleas taken on behalf of the applicant are hereby rejected."
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal with regard to delay in filing the original application does not suffer from any legal infirmity and the same is sustainable although on different grounds. In that regard it would be necessary to read Sections 20 and 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for brevity, 'the Act'), which is as under :- "20. Applications not to be admitted unless other remedies exhausted.- (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. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), a person shall be deemed to have availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances,- (a) if a final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order under such rules, rejecting any appeal preferred or representation made by such person in connection with the grievance; or (b) where no final order has been made by the Government or other authority or officer or other person competent to pass such order with regard to the appeal preferred or representation made by such person, if a period of six months from the date on which such appeal was preferred or representation was made has expired. (3) For the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (2), any remedy available to an applicant by way of submission of a memorial to the President or to 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. 21. Limitation.- (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) xxx xxx xxx";