Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. DHANAPALAN & G. CHOCKALINGAM, JJ.
S. Selvakumar
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.A. No. 173 of 2011
Decided on: 14-11-2014
Limitation Act - Review Petition - Section 153, Section 154 - The appellant's review petition was rejected as time-barred by the first respondent. The appellant challenged the rejection in a Writ Petition. The court found that the review petition was rightly rejected as it was time-barred and the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay. The court also condemned the appellant's persistent pursuit of legal proceedings despite being reinstated and retired from service.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a bank employee, was charged for shortage of cash, suspended, and later reinstated and retired. He filed a review petition which was rejected as time-barred. He challenged this rejection in a Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the review petition was rightly rejected as it was time-barred and the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay. The court also condemned the appellant's persistent pursuit of legal proceedings despite being reinstated and retired from service.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the appellant's review petition as time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the review petition was rightly rejected as it was time-barred and the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay. The court also condemned the appellant's persistent pursuit of legal proceedings despite being reinstated and retired from service.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000 payable by the appellant to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. Heard Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2010 made in W.P.No.6618 of 2009, whereby the relief sought to quash the order of the 1st respondent vide Letter No.9785/CP1/2006-1, dated 14.11.2008 and the consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to take the Review of the petitioner on file and deal with the same in accordance with law, stood dismissed, the writ petitioner is once again before this Court by way of this Writ Appeal.
3. It was the case of the writ petitioner/appellant that he joined the services of the 2nd respondent – Cooperative Bank as Peon (sub-staff) on 28.03.1969; thereafter, he undertook cooperative training to qualify himself for promotion; subsequently promoted as a Senior Assistant/Cashier on 13.02.1978 and discharged his functions and duties to the best of his abilities. While so, he was charged for shortage of cash in the vault, which was in the joint custody of the Manager of the 2nd respondent Bank and himself. He was suspended on 27.05.1992. But, the Manager of the 2nd respondent Bank was not suspended at that point of time. Thereafter, in a departmental enquiry, both the Manager and the writ petitioner were found guilty. The writ petitioner was penalized in reduction of rank by an order dated 06.07.1993 from the post of cashier and reverted to the rank of sub-staff I. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred a Revision before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the 3rd respondent herein, who, after examining the case, vide proceedings No.1416/94 A1, dated 04.03.1995, modified the order of punishment to the extent that the reversion only could be only as a Junior Assistant and not to the rank of sub-staff I.
3.1. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent posted the writ petitioner as Junior Assistant on 08.03.1995 in the time scale of pay of Rs.565-30/3-655-35/5-830-45/4-1010-55/7-1395. Following the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent, in his Letter No.1081/95 A1, dated 14.11.1995 fixed his basic pay at Rs.875/- with effect from 09.07.1993. Challenging the said fixation of basic pay, the writ petitioner preferred a Revision before the 3rd respondent. The said Revision was returned in R.C.No.190333/95, SF1, dated 09.01.1997 as defective. Being advised to represent the same, the writ petitioner represented the revision on 19.04.1997 seeking to fix the correct pay scale and fixation of seniority. In the meantime, the writ petitioner preferred a representation with the 2nd respondent seeking fixation of pay scale and seniority, to which the General Manager of the 2nd respondent issued a Letter vide Ref.No.1371/97 A1, dated 30.06.1997 holding that there was no question of reconsidering his fixation of scale of pay and seniority.
3.2. Thereafter, under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the writ petitioner preferred a petition for settlement of dispute on 26.10.1997 and the same was taken on file in Dispute No.495 of 1997-98. On 12.12.2000, orders were reserved in the said Dispute. While so, based on the order dated 24.08.2001 of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai in Criminal Proceedings C.C.No.92/99, the writ petitioner was removed from the services of the 2nd respondent on 29.10.2001 stating that he was convicted along with the Manager for the charges. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal Sessions Judge, Karur in C.A.No.42/2001, who, by an order dated 07.01.2002 confirmed the conviction, but set aside the sentence and released him under Sections 4(1) and 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, the Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, ordered that the benefits that would accrue on the writ petitioner under Section 12 of the Probation of Offen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
