( 1 ) THE short question, which is of general importance, that arises for our consideration is whether the State Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative tribunals Act, 1985 ( the act for brevity) has jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the review petition, notwithstanding the negative language voiced in Rule 19 of A. P. Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989.

( 2 ) THE facts germane to the reference before the Full Bench in Writ Petition may be stated in nutshell as under: the petitioner while working as Deputy inspector of Schools was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 3-9-1986. He filed R. P. No. 2009 of 1988, which was disposed of on 19-12-1988 with a direction that the enquiry should be completed within three months or else he should be reinstated. He was reinstated into service on 21-2-1989 and also retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31-1-1992 as per the order passed by the regional Joint Director of School Education, warangal dated 27-1-1992. The said order recites that petitioner was permitted to retire on the after noon of 31-1-1992 without prejudice to the right of the department of take disciplinary action against him on charges/allegations pending against him now and that may arise in future. Complaining that no enquiry is pending against him nor he has received any notice of enquiry he is not being paid pension filed o. A. No. 22397 of 1989 which was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner s service during the period of suspension should be treated as duty because no punishment was imposed on him pursuant to disciplinary enquiry as contemplated under FR 54 (B) and directed to pay the pension and other benefits within four months from the date of receipt of the order. In spite of the said direction petitioner s pensionary benefits were not paid. He got issued a legal notice to the respondents for implementing the order passed in R. P. No. 22397 of 1989 dated 3-6-1993. Since there was no response, petitioner filed Contempt Application 450 of 1993. During the pendency of Contempt application the respondent filed review masr 17105 of 1994 in R. P. No. 22397 of 1989. As there was a delay of 1 year 7 months and 29 days in filing the above review, MA (SR) No. 993 of 1995 was filed to condone the delay in filing review.

( 3 ) ON disposal of R. P. No. 22397 of 1985 the Regional Joint Director of School education, Warangal issued a Memo no. 459/ser. Il/88-23 Education dated 16-10-1993 read with proceedings rc. No. 112/a1/b1/86-lll dated 29-10-1993 communicating the enquiry report of the enquiry officer calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. Questioning the legality and propriety of the said memo petitioner filed O. A. No. 6748 of 1993. The tribunal by the impugned common order held that it got power to condone the delay in filing the application for review, since it is vested with the power to entertain the original application filed after the expiry of limitation period as per sub-section (3) of section 21 of the Act. Accordingly, it condoned the delay. On such condoning the delay it recalled the order passed in r. P. No. 22397 of 1989 dated 3-6-1993 and disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry pending against the applicant/petitioner and take necessary action as warranted under the Rules basing on the final decision in the enquiry proceedings. Consequently o. A. No. 6748 of 1993 was disposed of directing the petitioner to submit his explanation, if not already given, to the show cause notice impugned in the O. A. within two months and respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders on receipt of such explanation and C. A. No. 450 of 1993 was accordingly dismissed.

( 4 ) CHALLENGING the order in recalling the judgment in R. P. No. 22397 of 1989 dated 23-9-1993 petitioner filed the present writ petition. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Division Bench of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document