ORDER

1. The short question which is required to be considered is whether the court below was right in taking the view that the suit filed by the deceased-government servant was barred by limitation, having been filed three years after the date of dismissal. The order of dismissal was passed on 24-7-1967. Feeling aggrieved the delinquent filed a review under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963, (Rules) which review was dismissed on 6-12-1967. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the tribunal 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. Municipal Board, Kanpur{1959 SCR 1148}. That decision was reconsidered and overruled by this Court by a larger Bench of seven Judges in S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P.{(1989) 4 SCC 582} Briefly stated, the facts of that case were that the delinquent was dismissed from service by the Collectors order of 13-1-1966. He preferred an appeal against the said order which appeal was dismissed on 31-8-1966. The order of dismissal of the appeal was communicated to him on 19-9-1966. Thereafter, he gave notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, on 17-6-1969 and instituted the suit on 13-9-1969 for declaration that his dismissal was inoperative. Like here, in that case also, the suit was dismissed on the plea of limitation on the ground that the cause of action first arose as required by Article 58 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 on 13-1-1966. When the matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court reliance was placed on the decision in Sita Ram case{1959 SC 1148}. The Division Bench observed that Sita Ram case{1959 SCR 1148} requires reconsideration. That is how the matter came up before a Bench consisting of seven Judges. The larger Bench after noticing the relevant provisions of the law as well as the decided cases on the subject concluded in paragraph 18 as under : (SCC p. 590)

"We are satisfied that to meet the situation as has arisen here, it would be appropriate to hold that the cause of action first arises when the remedies available to the public 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; that reasonable opportunity was not given to him for defending himself; that the punishment was excessive or unjust; that he had discovered new material which was not within his knowledge and could not be adduced by him before the order imposing penalty was passed and that the order suffered from an evident error or omission such as failure to apply the law of limitation or an error apparent on the face of record. It would, therefore, appear that this was a statutory reme