1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1475 OF 1999 Ms Shobha Laxman Vaidya ...Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr N.M. Ganguli for Petitioner. None for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND R.G. KETKAR JJ. DATE : 20TH AUGUST 2009. 2 P.C. :- 1] The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are that the petitioner was working as Part Time Milk Centre Manager with the Government of Maharashtra. She was given a show cause notice asking her to show cause why there was delay in depositing the amount collected by her from the sale of milk. In her explanation dated 21st July 1978 she admitted that there was delay in crediting the amount, however, she explained that that happened because of her ill-health. Because she was a part time employee, in the sense, she was not permanent holder of the post, by a simple termination order, her services were terminated. The order is dated 10th August 1978. The petitioner accepted the termination order and did not challenge it. It appears that treating delay in depositing the amount as misappropriation, criminal prosecution was also launched against the petitioner. The prosecution resulted in her acquittal. The order of the Additional Chief 3 Metropolitan Magistrate is dated 14th August 1998. It is thereafter that the present petition was filed on 30th March 1999 challenging the order terminating the services of the petitioner dated 10th August 1978. 2] Under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the Administrative Tribunal was constituted for the employees of the Government of Maharashtra in the year 1989. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 lays down the period of limitation for making an application to the Tribunal in service mattes. Admittedly, by the time the Tribunal was constituted for the employees of the Government of Maharashtra, the period of limitation laid down by section 21 in relation to the petitioner s grievance had already expired. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner, however, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr Duryodhan Sahu and others v/s Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others, reported in AIR 1999 SC 114 submits that the jurisdiction of the Administrative 4 Tribunal is supplementary to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, though the claim of the petitioner may have been barred by the limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, this Court can still entertain the petition. We do not think that that is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Dr Duryodhan Sahu and others. In that case, the Supreme Court was considering whether the Administrative Tribunal can entertain public interest litigation and after considering the scheme of the Act, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Tribunal can only entertain individual grievance made and not grievance of public nature. However, even assuming that this Court continued to have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition, in our opinion, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief because the cause of action to the petitioner accrued on 10th August 1978 when her services were terminated. Her services were terminated by simplicitor order of termination. 5 3] If it was the case of the petitioner that though the order did not give any reason for terminating the services of the petitioner and the foundation of the order was the alleged misconduct, the petitioner has admitted the misconduct alleged against her viz. delay in depositing the amount collected by her in her explanation dated 21st July 1978 to the show cause notice. That there was a criminal prosecution pending on the same subject cannot be the justification for not approaching the Court challenging departmental action taken on the basis of same misconduct. Mere pendency of the criminal prosecution will not be an explanation for delay in approaching this Court. 4] Looking at the matter from any point of view, in our opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petition therefore fails, rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Parties to act on the copy of this order 6 duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE R.G. KETKAR )