SRIKANTA SENAPATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner in this writ application assails the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dated 4.9.1998 passed in O.A. No. 224 of 1990 dismissing the same.

(2.) THE case of the Petitioner before the Tribunal was that he was appointed as a Driver in the District Welfare office by orders of the Collector, Balasore on 15.7.1965 on being sponsored by the local Employment Exchange. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.1.1971 and while continuing under suspension, his service was terminated on 25.6.1971. At the relevant time he was involved in a series of criminal cases and was acquitted in all the cases except one, i.e., G.R. Case No. 1004 of 1971. He having been convicted in the said case, preferred Criminal Appeal No. 38/172 of 1983 and the appeal was allowed acquitting him of the charge on 19.11.1984. After being acquitted in all the criminal cases, he submitted a representation on 22.4.1987 to the Collector, Balasore for his reinstatement in service. There being no communication from the side of the Collector, he preferred an appeal before the R.D.C., Central Division, Cuttack and the appeal was rejected on 23.12.1989. Thereafter he approached the Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Application praying for all service benefits retrospectively w.e.f. 22.1.1971 till the date of reinstatement. A counter affidavit was filed by the O. Ps. before the Tribunal stating therein that the Petitioner had been placed under suspension by the Collector, Balasore for using the official jeep in the mid -night of 20.1.1971 without any authority in a burglary case in the G.P. office, Balasore. The Superintendent of Police, Balasore intimated about the involvement of the Applicant in six more criminal cases. In view of the above, the appointment of the Petitioner being on temporary basis, it was terminated while he was under suspension.

(3.) SHRI Aswini Kumar Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the Original Application had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation and therefore, could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Reliance was placed on the order of rejection of the appeal in Annexure -6. According to the learned Senior Counsel Shri Mishra, the appeal of the Petitioner having been rejected by the R.D.C. and communicated to the Petitioner by the Establishment Officer in his letter dated 23.12.1989, the Original Application filed in the year 1990 was well within the period of limitation and the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the Original Application solely on the ground of limitation. Learned Counsel for the State in support of the impugned judgment submitted that the Petitioner's service was terminated on 25.6.1971 and nothing prevented him for filing any appeal against the said termination order. The criminal cases have no bearing with the order of termination and for the first time he preferred an appeal to the R.D.C, Central Division on 13.5.1988 which was rejected on 23.12.1989. Mere rejection of the appeal does not give rise a fresh cause of action for filing an Original Application challenging the order of termination after lapse of almost 18 years.