^H mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR Writ Appeal No.97 of 2007 M->PELLANTS: 1. 2. State of. CIihattisgarh, through the Secretaiy, Departnieut of Com.mercial Tax, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Clihattisgarh) The Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Raipur (Chliattisgarh) Versus SESPONDENTS: R.N. Singh, aged about 56 years, S/o Shri H.R. Singh, workiag as Conimercial Tax Inspector/ O/o Commercial Tax, Bilaspur, Circle-I, B.ilaspur (Chhattisgarh) State of Madhya Pradesh, Through Principal Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) The Commissioner, Tax, Indore (M.P.) Commercial Prcsent: Shri Ivishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State/ appellants. Shri U.N. Awasthi, Senior Advocate with Shri Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri Sacliin Singh Rajput, counsel for respondents No,2 and 3. Division Benchs Hon'ble Shri Dhtrendra Mishra & Hoai^ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. J,U,D,GME_N_T (18-11-2009) The appellaiits have preferred fhis writ appeal under Sectiou 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Beuch) Act, 2006 (for short 'the Actl with au application for condonatioii of delay, as the appeal has been preferred with a delay of 316 days, as per ofiice note dated 2nd May, 2007, against the order dated 2nd May, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 579 of 2003 whereby learned Siagle Judge has allowed fche writ petition of respondent No.l and quashed fhe show cause notice dated 8-10-1996 on the ground that the same is incompetent and unconstitutiouai. It has becu furtlier held fhat the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits including seuiority, difference ofwages and consideration for promotion, if any, in accordaiice with the order dated 23-6-1987 passed by respondent No/2, State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. During tlie pendeucy of this appeaL fhe appeUants have been permitted to amend the niesiio of appeal to prefer this appeal under Rule 157 Clause-10 of,the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2005 in place ofthe Act. 3, Hereio.after the parties shaU be referred to as per their descriptiou before the Writ Caurt. 4. T'he facts releva.nt for adjudication of this appeal as~ projected in the impugned order are that tlie petitioner was appointed as Sales Tax Inspector; a departmeutal enquir^r was mitiated agaiiist him and punishmeut of stoppage of 4 iiicrements with cumulative effect was imposed by the discipUnar}^ aufhority on 6-6-1980. However, the State Goveroment allowed the appeal preferred by fhe petitioner, set aside the penalty and gave warniag to the petitioner. Secoud departm-ental euquiry on dilferent charges of misconduct was tnitiated and discipliaary authority passed an order ofremoval offhe petitioner on 22-12-86« However, fhe State Governmeut allowed the appeal of the petitioner, set aside the order of removal and directed the reiustatement of the petitioiier vide ordcr dated 23-6-87. His services were regularized cn 9-7-87. Subsequently, the State Gover.ument reviewed, the order passed eartier aud miposed m.ajor peualty of compulso^ retirement on 29-8-89. The Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribuual") allowed the Original Applicatiou No.2514/89 and quashed the order dated 29-8-89 passed io. review vide its order dated 14-8-90 on fhe ground that fhe petitioBer was not ^^ afforded opportunity of hearing before fhe order of review was passed, 5. Another show caiise notice dated 8-10-96 was issued-to the petitbner 'by the State of Madhya Pradesh ou fhe grouDd that the order passed in review was quashed by the Tribunal cn the grouiid that fhe petitioncr was uot affbrded opportunity of hearing before the order in review dated 29-8-89 was passed. The petitioner impugned the aforesaid show cause notice by fi]ing thc above writ petition and the same has been allowed by tlie leamed Siug'le Ju<lge with an observation fhat the Original Applicatiou filed by £.he petitioner was aUowed by tlie Tribunal,. While quas:hing flie order of review, fhe Tribuual did not grant any tiberty to the respondents to niitiate a fresh departmentel enquiry or issue a fresh show cause iiotice aud, therefore, the respoiidents have no authority to iiiitiate a fresh deparfcoiental enquir}^ contrary to the order pa.ssed.by the Tribuual cn 14-8-90. A m-atter adjudicated, adjusted finally befr^een the parties involvi.ng tlie same cause of actiou canuot be re-agitated agaiu before the Tribuual or auttority aiid the same is barred by prraciple of res judicata. 6. The petitioner iu reply to ffae applicatiou for coudonation of delay. submitted that the aforesaid Act com.e into force on 6th Jauuaiy, 2007. Prior to commencement of the said Act, the respondents ha.d rem.edy of filio.g' SLP - before the Suprem-e Court withln a prcscribed limitation of 90 days. The order was passed ou 2nd May, 2006 whereas, the State has filed the albresaid appeal with a delay of 316 days. The explanation ia tte application for condonation of delay does not explain fhe inordinate delay of 316 days and fhe reasons assigned do not constitute a sutTicient cause. 7. Sliii Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additioiial Advoca.te (^eneral for fhe State/appellants siibmitted that Rule 157 Clause-10 of the Chliattisgarh High Court Rules, 2005 provides for intra court appeal and delay iu filmg the appeal has been properly explained. Th^ State had issued a show cause notice to ffae petitioner , as the ^37, SE^"" earMer order of review passed as per the decision of CoiiBcil of Miiusters imposing peually ou the petitioner was quashed by the Tribuual ouly ou the ground that show cause notice aa contemplated under Rule 29 was not issued to the petitioner, 8. 0-n the ofhcr .liand, Shri' Sachin Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing ou behatf of respondeuts No.2 aud 3 has also supported tlie stand of the State of the Chhattisgarh. 9. Shri- U«N, Awasthi, lcarned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submitted fhat fhe peually imposed upon the petitioner was quashed 'by the appeUate authority vicle orders dated 19-9-86 and 23-7-86. The order of tfae appellate autliority was reviewed vide order dated 29-8-89 by .fhe State Governnient, v^hich was quashed on 14-8-90 by fhe TribunaL However, after quashing of order of removal from service, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 24-2-94 and 8-10-96 and 10 years thercafter show cause notices were quashed on 2nd May, 2006 by tlie inipugned order. Thus, takmg .iiito consideration the a&resaid tacts and also considering the reasons assigned by fhe learued Single Jud.ge, therc. is no substauce in fhe iastant appeal either on merits or for the purposes of coudoning the delay in filing this appeal, 10.We have heard lcarned counsel for the parties. 11/We have examiiied show cause notice issued ia the year 1996 by t.he State Governm.eut whereby fhe petitioner has been iiitimated fhat the State Government has taken a fmal. decision of imposing peiialty of com.pulsori.ly retirmg the petitioner for his alleged miscoudu(^t and this uotice is beijig served as the State Admirustratwe Tribunal has set aside the order dated 29-8-89 passed by the department opJy on the ground that the petitioner was not served with a notice as coutemplated under Proviso (1) to Rule 29 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Se.rvices (Class.i&ca.tio.n, Control aud Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short 'the Ri.iles, 1966'). ^3<9: l2.From the undisputed facts narrated in the foregonig paragraphs, we lind that the punishment imposed zipon tlie petitiouer wa s quashed in fhe year 1986 aud the order of the appellate aLithority was rcviewed ia the inonfh ofAugust, 1989 aud the petitioucr was compulsorily retired. The order passed in review was quashed by the Tribuual io the year 1990, 10 years after passinLg of the order of the appellate authorily, a show cause notice was issued to tbe petitioner under Rule 29 of the Rules, 1966 in the year 1996, From readiug ofthe show cause notice, it is evident that issuance of show cause notice is mere fbrmality and the same has 'been issiied with pre-determiaed mind. Show cause notice has been quashcd by the impugued order iu the year 2006 after 10 years and this appeal has been preferred under Rule 157 of the Clihattisgarh High Court Rules, 2005 with a delay of 3 16 days. IS.Taking into cousideration that the State GoverDiiieut proposes to review its own order as appeUate authority passed in the year 1986 after 10 years, also considering tliat there is no explauatiou for inordinate delay of 316 days in filing this appeal and fbrther consideriiig the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition, we are offhe opirdon fhat the appeIlaD.ts have failed to estabMsh sufficieut cause for condonation of iuordiuate delay of 316 days in fiUng this appeal. 14J?i the result, the appeal is without any substence, the same €lesen7esto be aud is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation.. Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge