proceedings, two in the Central Administrative
Tribunal and one before the Supreme Court. The
chargesheet in question was issued in l987 and the
first penalty of compulsory retirement was issued
in l988 and the said penalty was set aside by the
tribunal by judgement and order dated 8.8.l99l in
Original Application No.604 of l988. The
subsequent penalty passed in the matter is six
years after the judgement during which period the
petitioner’s challenge regarding placing him under
deemed suspension was initially upheld by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in
Original Application No.32l of l992 which was set
aside by the Supreme Court in l996. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submits and, in our
opinion rightly, that the entire history of
litigation would clearly indicate that the
petitioner was diligently pursuing his remedies and
even in the present case the petitioner has
approached the court of law within the period of
limitation. In the above circumstances the
tribunal was clearly in error in holding that the
claim against the penalty of l0% cut is barred by
limitation and the application suffers from
multiple reliefs. The impugned order dated
27.2.2003 is therefore quashed and set aside. The
