TMI Blog1994 (5) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was wrong in taking the view that the period of limitation began to run from 24-7-1967 when the order of dismissal was passed because the delinquent was entitled to exhaust the departmental remedy and, therefore, at best the period could run against him from 6-12-1967. He further stated that since statutory notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code had to be given the period of limitation stood enlarged by further two months. If that period is added the suit filed on 5-2-1971 was clearly in time. We think there is considerable force in this line of reasoning. 2. In taking the view that the suit was barred by limitation the tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sita Ram Goel v. Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublic servant under the relevant Service Rules as to redressal are disposed of. The larger Bench was of the view that if the service rules provided for an appeal or any statutory representation the period spent in perusing that remedy would be available to the delinquent and the period of limitation would start after the appeal or statutory representation is disposed of. In the present case, as stated earlier, although an appeal was not available to the delinquent, Rule 21 entitled him to make, within a period of three months from the date on which the order came to be communicated to him, a petition to the Government to review the order passed against him on the ground that the authority which passed the order was not competent to do so; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record of the enquiry and material which the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration. The tribunal observed that where such a material which the disciplinary authority relies on is not disclosed to the delinquent it must be held that he was denied the opportunity of being heard, meaning thereby that the audi alteram partem rule had been violated. In the present case the tribunal found that the directions to this effect found in the Government Memorandum No. 821/Services-C/69-8 dated 30-3-1971 had not been adhered to. Had the tribunal not come to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation, it would have allowed the appeal preferred by the delinquent. 4. In the result, therefore, this appeal succeeds. The order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
