JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this petition, which was initially filed as an Original Application, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“(i) That inquiry report (Annexure A­6), order dated 17th August, 2009 (Annexure A­7) and order dated 3rd November, 2010 (Annexure A­11) may very kindly be quashed and set aside by further reinstating the applicant in the service with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc. in the interest of law and justice.”

2. The Original Application itself was filed in the month of November, 2017, i.e. after a lapse of seven years as from the date when the impugned orders were passed. After the abolition of the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and registered as Civil Writ Petition.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are that vide Annexure A­7, i.e. order dated 17.08.2009, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the minimum of time scale of Rs.3330­6200 i.e. at Rs.3330/­ which was initial of the scale for a period of three years upon the petitioner with further condition that he will not earn increment during this period of reduction. The order was passed after Disciplinary Proceedings were held against the petitioner as per the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner preferred an Appeal. Vide Annexure A­9, dated 03.07.2010, the Appellate Authority issued a show cause to the petitioner stating therein that as in the opinion of the Appellate Authority, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority was on the lessor side, what major penalty of removal from service may not imposed upon him as the allegation against the petitioner was that he was under the influence of liquor while performing his duty as a driver.

5. After the response of the petitioner thereto, the Appellate Authority vide order Annexure A­11, dated 03.11.2010, modified the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, imposed penalty of ‘compulsory retirement’ upon the petitioner w.e.f. 08.11.2010.

6. This order was not challenged by the petitioner within the statutory limitation period of one year as provided under the Administrative Tribunals Act, but was assailed after seven years by way of O.A. No. 6079 of 2017. Not only this, a perusal of the averments made in the Original Application demonstrates that in Para­5 thereof there was no prayer for condonation of delay, but the reason given therein for approaching learned Tribunal beyond the period of limitation was that the petitioner was harassed by the officers time and again and further as he was pressurized by the Authorities that if he again approaches the Court he will be imposed a very harsh penalty. It was on this count that he did not file the Original Application within the period of Limitation.

7. Be that as it may, the averments so made in the Original Application have not been substantiated by any material on record and nothing was placed on record to substantiate such bald assertion.

8. During the course of hearing of this petition on 18.12.2023, this Court passed the following order:

“With the consent of the parties, the case was taken up for consideration today itself.

A perusal of the relief clause demonstrate that the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of order dated 3rd November, 2010, by way of this petition, which was filed after almost seven years. Incidentally, the petition was originally filed as an Original Application before the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, wherein, the law of limitation was applicable and the limitation period for assailing the order was one year.

Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be granted some time to assist the Court on this ground. List on 21