The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's termination of services from fifteen years prior. The Court held that limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act barred relief and noted that pending criminal proceedings do not excuse delay in challenging departmental action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1475 OF 1999
Ms Shobha Laxman Vaidya ...Petitioner
v/s
State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents
Mr N.M. Ganguli for Petitioner.
None for Respondents.
CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ.
DATE : 20TH AUGUST 2009.
2
P.C. :-
1]The facts that are material and relevant
for deciding this petition are that the petitioner
was working as Part Time Milk Centre Manager with
the Government of Maharashtra. She was given a show
cause notice asking her to show cause why there was
delay in depositing the amount collected by her from
the sale of milk. In her explanation dated 21st
July 1978 she admitted that there was delay in
crediting the amount, however, she explained that
that happened because of her ill-health. Because
she was a part time employee, in the sense, she was
not permanent holder of the post, by a simple
termination order, her services were terminated.
The order is dated 10th August 1978. The
petitioner accepted the termination order and did
not challenge it. It appears that treating delay
in depositing the amount as misappropriation,
criminal prosecution was also launched against the
petitioner. The prosecution resulted in her
acquittal. The order of the Additional Chief
3
Metropolitan Magistrate is dated 14th August 1998.
It is thereafter that the present petition was filed
on 30th March 1999 challenging the order terminating
the services of the petitioner dated 10th August
1978.
2]Under the Administrative Tribunals Act
1985, the Administrative Tribunal was constituted
for the employees of the Government of Maharashtra
in the year 1989. Section 21 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act 1985 lays down the period of
limitation for making an application to the Tribunal
in service mattes. Admittedly, by the time the
Tribunal was constituted for the employees of the
Government of Maharashtra, the period of limitation
laid down by section 21 in relation to the
petitioner�s grievance had already expired. The
learned counsel appearing for petitioner, however,
relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Dr Duryodhan Sahu and others v/s Jitendra
Kumar Mishra and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 114
submits that the jurisdiction of the Administrative
4
Tribunal is supplementary to the jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and therefore, though the claim of the
petitioner may have been barred by the limitation
under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, this
Court can still entertain the petition. We do not
think that that is the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in its judgment in the case of Dr Duryodhan
Sahu and others. In that case, the Supreme Court
was considering whether the Administrative Tribunal
can entertain public interest litigation and after
considering the scheme of the Act, the Supreme Court
came to the conclusion that the Tribunal can only
entertain individual grievance made and not
grievance of public nature. However, even assuming
that this Court continued to have the jurisdiction
to entertain the petition, in our opinion, the
petitioner cannot be granted any relief because the
cause of action to the petitioner accrued on 10th
August 1978 when her services were terminated. Her
services were terminated by simplicitor order of
termination.
5
3]If it was the case of the petitioner that
though the order did not give any reason for
terminating the services of the petitioner and the
foundation of the order was the alleged misconduct,
the petitioner has admitted the misconduct alleged
against her viz. delay in depositing the amount
collected by her in her explanation dated 21st July
1978 to the show cause notice. That there was a
criminal prosecution pending on the same subject
cannot be the justification for not approaching the
Court challenging departmental action taken on the
basis of same misconduct. Mere pendency of the
criminal prosecution will not be an explanation for
delay in approaching this Court.
4]Looking at the matter from any point of
view, in our opinion, no relief can be granted to
the petitioner. Petition therefore fails, rule is
discharged with no order as to costs.
Parties to act on the copy of this order
6
duly authenticated by the Associate / Private
Secretary of this Court.
Certified copy expedited.
( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH )
( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition challenging termination of services when the limitation period under the Administrative Tribunals Act has expired.
Whether the pendency of a criminal prosecution for the same misconduct bar the employee from approaching the Court to challenge departmental termination.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr Duryodhan Sahu and others v/s Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, AIR 1999 SC 114Distinguished¶25
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ms Shobha Laxman Vaidya
State of Maharashtra
D.K. Deshmukh
R.G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court