1989 (9) TMI 194 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether it should be disposal of one appeal or the entire hierarchy of reliefs as may have been provided? Held that - the cause of action shall be taken to arise not from the date of the original adverse order but on the date when the order of the higher authority where a statutory remedy is provided entertaining the appeal or representation is made and where no such order is made, though the remedy has been availed of, a six months period from the date of preferring of the appeal or making of the representation shall be taken to be the date when cause of action shall be taken to have first arisen. We, however, make it clear that this principle may not be applicable when the remedy availed of has not been provided by law. Repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle. Coming to the facts of the present appeal since the claim has been dismissed on the plea of limitation and our conclusion is that the suit was within time, the judgment of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law. Too long a period has now intervened between the dismissal of the suit and our order of remand. We, therefore, direct the learned Trial Judge to take all effective steps open to him in law to ensure that the suit is disposed of finally before the 15th of December, 1989.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation.
2. The applicability of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. The principle of merger in departmental proceedings.
4. The significance of exhausting administrative remedies before filing a suit.
5. The impact of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on limitation periods.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation:
The plaintiff, a Government servant, was dismissed from service on January 13, 1966. His appeal was dismissed on August 31, 1966, and he filed a suit on September 30, 1969, seeking a declaration that the dismissal order was inoperative. The suit was dismissed by the lower courts on the ground of limitation, as it was not filed within three years from the date of dismissal.

2. The applicability of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The courts below applied Article 58 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a three-year period for obtaining any other declaration, starting from when the right to sue first accrues. The plaintiff argued that the residuary Article 113 should apply, but the court held that Article 113 is a general provision applicable only when no other Article applies.

3. The principle of merger in departmental proceedings:
The court examined whether the order of dismissal by the Collector merged into the appellate order by the Divisional Commissioner. Citing previous judgments, the court noted that departmental inquiries, even if they culminate in decisions on appeals or revisions, cannot be equated with proceedings before regular courts of law. However, the court ultimately held that the order of dismissal did merge into the appellate order, thus extending the limitation period.

4. The significance of exhausting administrative remedies before filing a suit:
The court emphasized that administrative remedies must be exhausted before challenging disciplinary orders in court. Section 20(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was cited, which requires that all remedies available under the relevant service rules must be exhausted before filing a claim. The court observed that if the original order of punishment is taken as the date when the cause of action first accrues, great hardship would result due to the delay in finalizing departmental remedies.

5. The impact of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on limitation periods:
The court held that the cause of action arises when the remedies available under the relevant service rules are disposed of. If no final order is made within six months of preferring an appeal or making a representation, the cause of action is deemed to have arisen. The court clarified that repeated unsuccessful representations not provided by law are not governed by this principle.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the suit was within time and set aside the judgments of the Trial Court, the First Appellate Court, and the High Court. The matter was remitted to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with the law, with directions to ensure that the suit is disposed of by December 15, 1989. Costs were to abide by the event.

← Previous Next →