The court upheld that failure to timely challenge disciplinary actions negates claims for parity in employment benefits.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.No.1450 of 2020 filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.07.2019 from the post of Grade Sub Inspector, Kollam City Police Control Room. In 1997, the petitioner had to face departmental proceedings on account of being a member of the Quarter Guard at Kollam Armed Reserve Camp, wherein a cash box was moved within the premises of the camp itself, and there was a consequential inability to produce the cash box upon demand on the very next day. The petitioner had to face a criminal case in which he was acquitted on 12.06.2009. In addition to the criminal case, the petitioner was suspended on 03.02.1997 vide Annexure A1 order dated 03.02.1997 by the Deputy Superintendent of police. Subsequently, he was dismissed from service on 02.04.1998 vide Annexure A2 order. After acquittal in the criminal case, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 30.03.2010 with a punishment of barring two increments with cumulative effect. Another co-delinquent, the 2^nd accused in the criminal case and who was reinstated in service on the same date as the petitioner, was given the benefit of regularisation of the period kept out as duty for all purposes vide Annexure A4 order dated 14.01.2010 of the 3^rd respondent. Though the petitioner claimed parity for treating the same period as duty for all purposes, said claim is rejected vide Annexure A6 order dated 29.02.2016 of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner has been discriminated against in the matter of regularisation, which was granted without any reservations to a co-delinquent. Annexure A6 Government Order, though it specifically notices the upholding of the co-delinquent's rights, fails to confer parity upon the petitioner who is a member of the very same Quarter Guard. The petitioner is seriously aggrieved for being penalised twice with perpetual consequences and non-grant of parity in benefits with similarly placed personnel who faced the very same departmental proceedings. Hence, the petitioner filed the original application before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Call for the records leading to Annexures A1 and A2 and set them aside.

II. Call for the records leading to Annexure A6 GO and set it aside to the extent it denies regularisation for the period from 03.02.1997 to 30.03.2010 during which time the applicant was kept out of service.

III. Declare that the period from 03.02.1997 to 30.03.2010 as duty for all purposes for the applicant.

IV. Declare that the applicant is entitled to arrears, benefits, and all consequential allowances for the period from 03.02.1997 to 30.03.2010, and direct disbursal of said amounts”.

2.1. In the original application on behalf of the respondents

1 and 2, a reply statement dated 19.01.2022 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner and producing therewith Annexure R2(a) and R2(b) documents. To that reply statement, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 10.07.2023.

2.2. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 02.04.2024, dismissed the original application along with O.A.No.2090 of 2019 filed by some similarly situated persons as that of the petitioner.

2.3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the original application, the petitioner filed this original petition, and likewise, the applicants in O.A.No.2090 of 2019 filed O.P.(KAT)No.258 of

2024.

3. Heard the learned counse