1994 (5) TMI 285 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation period for filing suit by deceased government servant
2. Application of natural justice principle in disciplinary proceedings

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The main issue in this case was whether the suit filed by the deceased government servant was barred by limitation. The order of dismissal was passed on 24-7-1967, and the suit was filed on 5-2-1971. The appellant argued that the period of limitation should run from 6-12-1967, the date of dismissal of the review petition, and that the statutory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code should extend the limitation period. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant's argument, citing the decision in S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., which held that the period of limitation starts after the remedies available to the public servant under relevant service rules are exhausted. The Court noted that in this case, the delinquent had a statutory remedy under Rule 21 to seek a review, which extended the limitation period. Therefore, the suit filed on 5-2-1971 was within the limitation period, and the lower courts erred in dismissing it as time-barred.

Issue 2:
On the issue of natural justice, the tribunal found that the principle of natural justice had been violated because the delinquent was not provided with a copy of the Vigilance Commission Report, which was considered in the disciplinary proceedings. The tribunal held that failure to disclose such material to the delinquent amounted to a violation of the audi alteram partem rule. The Court agreed with the tribunal's finding on natural justice but noted that since the suit was not time-barred, it would have allowed the appeal by the delinquent if not for the limitation issue. Therefore, the Court set aside the tribunal's order dismissing the suit as barred by limitation and quashed the dismissal order, granting consequential benefits to the legal representatives of the deceased delinquent.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the tribunal's order, and directed the respondent-State to calculate and provide the monetary benefits to the appellants within three months. The Court also ruled that the delinquent would be entitled to wages and allowances up to the date of retirement or demise, whichever is earlier, with the legal representatives eligible for family pension under the rules after the delinquent's demise.