9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by High Court on the ground of limitation. 2. Calculation of period of limitation for filing a suit challenging the order of discharge. 3. Interpretation of Rule 12 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1935. 4. Applicability of principles of natural justice in the order of discharge. 5. Jurisdiction of State Government in departmental proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court heard the appeal where the appellant challenged the High Court's dismissal of his appeal on the ground of limitation. The appellant was discharged from service on 27-7-61, and subsequent appeals were rejected. The appellant filed a suit on 7-8-1968, claiming the order of discharge was illegal due to lack of natural justice. The trial court and first appellate court found the order void but dismissed the suit as time-barred. The High Court upheld the dismissal based on limitation, without addressing the merits of the discharge order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating the limitation period should start from 19-12-1965, the date of communication of the State Government's order, making the suit filed on 7-8-1968 within time. 2. The Supreme Court emphasized that the final order in the appellant's case was passed by the State Government in revision and communicated on 19-12-1965. Therefore, the period of limitation for filing the suit challenging the discharge order should be calculated from this date, not the original order date of 27-7-1961. By computing the limitation period from the communication date of the State Government's order, the appellant's suit was deemed timely filed on 7-8-1968. 3. Rule 12 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1935 empowered the State Government and the Head of the Department to conduct departmental proceedings and pass appropriate orders. The appellant utilized this provision by filing a Revision Application before the State Government, which was rejected on 5-8-1965. The delay in communicating this rejection to the appellant until 19-12-1965 played a crucial role in determining the start of the limitation period for filing the suit challenging the discharge order. 4. The trial court and first appellate court found the order of discharge to be null and void due to a serious infirmity in not following the principles of natural justice. Despite this, they dismissed the suit as time-barred. The Supreme Court, while upholding the lower courts' decision on the illegality of the discharge order, focused on the correct calculation of the limitation period, allowing the appeal based on this ground. 5. The Supreme Court's decision to remit the case back to the High Court was to provide an opportunity for the respondents to support the first appellate court's decision on the ground previously decided against them. However, the Court clarified that the issue of limitation was conclusively settled by their decision, indicating that the calculation of the limitation period from the communication date of the State Government's order was the correct approach. The Court made no order as to the costs of the appeal.
|
