PRAFULLA KUMAR PRADHAN vs Dept. Of Office Stationery on 12 November 2026

O R D E R

Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member, J.M.

The applicant challenging the order dated 25.01.2002 passed by Respondent No. 2has filed this OA praying for following reliefs: a) Let the impugned order no. C/13013/17/95-OMV dtd. 25.01.2002 passed by the respondent no. 2 be quashed by this Hon’ble Tribunal. b) Let the respondent no. 2 be directed to give opportunity to the applicant to file his objection/written statement to the memorandum. c) Let the respondent no. 2 be directed to consider the ill health of the applicant as mentioned above and start a de-novo disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and the applicant is to be given opportunity to defend against the memorandum of charges leveled against him. d) Let any other appropriate order(s) be passed as deemed fit and proper.

Kalpeswar Behera

2. The fact of the case as inter alia averred stated by the applicant in the OA is as follows: 2.1 That the applicant was appointed in Group-D in the dept. of respondent no.2 vide order no.54 dtd. 13.06.1986 and joined as a labourer in stationery office, Kolkatta. That the applicant worked as a labourer in the aforesaid organisation up to satisfaction of his authority & on 13.01.1993 he wrote an application to the authority to issue a no objection certificate so that he would appear in the Madhyama Certificate Examination under Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Biswavidyalaya, Srivihar, Puri, Odisha accordingly on 22.02.1993 the respondent no.2 issued an no objection certificate to applicant. 2.2 That the applicant appeared in the Madhyama Certificate Examination and placed in third division in the said examination. That in the mean time, the applicant would work as a labourer in the said organisation till 1997. In the year, 1997 he fell sick and after investigation he was diagnosed with suffering from Dementia, which is a very serious brain disease characterised by impairment of at least two brain function such as memory loss and judgment. He was first treated in Utkal Ayurvdik Hospital,

Kalpeswar Behera

Nayagarh, Odisha from 18.01.2001 to 05.08.2016 and after that he got his treatment at Govt. Hospital, Odagaon, Dist-Nayagarh from 07.08.2016 to 10.08.2017. 2.3 That due to the aforesaid disease the applicant could not work as a labourer in his work place since 1995. In the mean time, the respondent no.2 started a disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in the year 1995 and issued one memorandum on 20.06.1997, but the applicant has never received the said memorandum as he was in the hospital in that time. In his absent the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent no.2 passed an order punishing the applicant "Removal from Govt. service" vide its order no. C/13013/17/95-OMV dtd.25.01.2002. 2.4 That the applicant begs to state that he has never received the memorandum due to his hospitalisation in the said disease and in his absence, the disciplinary proceedings has come to an order of severe punishment which is against the principle of natural justice. That the applicant after getting fully recovered from the said disease had gone to the office of the respondent no.2, where he came to know about his removal from the service.

Kalpeswar Behera

2.5 That the applicant should get an opportunity to give his answer to the disciplinary committee against the charges levelled against him in the memorandum for which he prays this Hon'ble Tribunal to give him an opportunity to make his stand before the disciplinary authority.

3. The respondents have filed their counter stating as follows: 3.1 That the applicant was appointed in Group-D in the dept. of respondent no.2 vide order no.54 dtd. 13.06.1986 and joined as a labourer in stationery office, Kolkatta. That the applicant worked as a labourer in the aforesaid organisation up to satisfaction of his authority & on 13.01.1993 he wrote an application to the authority to issue a no objection certificate so that he would appear in the Madhyama Certificate Examination under Sri Jagannath Sanskrit Biswavidyalaya, Srivihar, Puri, Odisha accordingly on 22.02.1993 the respondent no.2 issued an no objection certificate to applicant. 3.2 That the O.A. is barred by law of limitation and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with cost. That the cause of action has arisen out of the State of Odisha, as such this Hon'ble

Kalpeswar Behera

Tribunal lacks of jurisdiction to deal and decide the matter as all the respondent are of West Bengal and orders have been passed by them. 3.3 That in response to the facts stated in Para 4.4 of the O.A. it is duly submitted that the applicant was removed from the service on 08/10/2001.However the applicant had been given an opportunity to make an representation within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the removal order from the service. But no such representation had been received by the Disciplinary authority within the stipulated period. It is a matter of surprise that the petitioner file the instant OA after 4 years getting fit certificate from the hospital. Further it is not out of place to say here which medical practitioner had referred the petitioner to the said hospital from which brought the fit certificate. In the absence of such reference this medical certificate is not acceptable by this department. Further it appears from the medical certificate that he was under the treatment of the hospital only from 07.08.2016 to 10.08.2017. The said medical certificate declared the petitioner to resume the duty with effect from 11.08.2017. There is no explanation to this period from 11.08.2017 till filing of OA by condoning delay and as to why he

Kalpeswar Behera was permuted to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal, as such this OA is liable to be dismissed with cost being barred by law of limitation. 3.4 That the applicant was duly communicated the charge memo by registered post asking him to file his so cause, but the applicant failed to respond relating to file said so cause. The applicant continuously remained absent from his duties without any permission or intimation to competent authority since 1991 and thereafter since 02.01.1997. Thus finding no other alternative way an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the matter and said enquiry was conducted because the applicant was failed to appear in the enquiry intentionally without any information to the I.O. After conclusion of the enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority as charges being proved against the applicant. The Disciplinary Authority had accepted the said enquiry report and before passing the final order, an opportunity was given to the applicant for making representation to the enquiry report, which was duly communicated to the applicant by registered post A/D vide memo dated 08.10.2001. In spite of such memo the applicant did not respond and remained silent. During the

Kalpeswar Behera period, there is no evidence to show that the applicant was under treatment for any ailment. The certificate enclosed is not acceptable as there is no signature or thumb impression of the patient/applicant on the said certificate. Thus the said certificate is a manufactured document to overcome the lapses of the applicant. Thus the O.A. being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed with cost. 3.5 That the facts stated in Para 4.6 of the OA are not correct and the same are denied herewith. The applicant was never treated as indoor patient, as it seems from the documents filed, though the same are denied by the respondents. The assertions made are baseless and without any material evidence. Thus the O.A. is liable to be dismissed. 3.6 That the applicant never approached the Respondent No. 2 as claimed by him. The assertions made are false. There is no specific date and since when he went to the office of the Respondent No. 2. Thus the claim of the applicant is without any basis and the same is liable to be dismissed. That after conclusion of the proceeding duly as per law extending due opportunity of hearing to the applicant. The applicant failed to

Kalpeswar Behera

respond the said proceeding at all stages. The applicant could have appeared before the authorities along with his family members or friend to establish his innocence or could have written a letter to that respect. The applicant has been getting treatment as outdoor patient and as such he was in a moving condition. 3.7 That the order of punishment is being passed duly, fairly after extending due opportunity of hearing to the applicant. There is no denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing in the matter and as such the impugned order is just and proper as per law. The applicant has remained absent from his duty intentional, deliberately and without any reasonable cause. There is no reasonable explanation for such long absent from duty. Thus the OA is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. The applicant has filed MA No. 118/2021 praying for condonation of delay stating that he fell sick in the year 1997 and diagnosed with suffering from dementia and due to she said disease lost his all memory and regained his memory in the last quarter of the year 2019.

Kalpeswar Behera

6. The respondents have filed objection to the same.

7. It is a well settled principle that delay defeats equity. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.S. Balu vs. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC479 in the following terms: "17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage."

8. The Apex Court in State of T.N. v. Seshachalam (2007) 10 SCC 137 observed that it is now well settled that filing of series of representations cannot extend the period of limitation to condone the laches on the part of the petitioner and Delay or Laches are a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration as law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.

9. The Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs. K. Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322 held that series of representation cannot extend the period of limitation to condone the laches on

Kalpeswar Behera the part of the petitioner. The Apex Court, at Paragraph 6, held as follows:

6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another (2008)10 SCC 115 the Apex Court held that Reply to the representation relating to matter which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. The replies to such representations cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.

10. The Apex Court had occasion to examine such a situation in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkarb (2010) 2 SCC 59 wherein the Court held as follows: "The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead’ issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches."

11. It is relevant to refer to a Seven Judge Bench judgment in the case of S.S. Rathorevs State of Madhya Pradesh 1989 SCC (4)

Kalpeswar Behera

582 while dealing with the cause of action in a case of service dispute in view of the special limitation prescribed under Section 21(1)(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, inter alia, held that the repeated representation would not give rise to cause of action nor would condone the delay.

12. In view of the above discussions and settled position of law, we find that the OA is barred by limitations. Accordingly MA No. 118/2021 stands dismissed. Resultantly the OA stands dismissed. Pending MAs stand disposed of. No costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Kalpeswar Behera