WP (C) No. 20045/2004 nsk Page 1 of 3 Unreportable * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP (C) No. 20045/2004 & WP (C) No. 20045-A/2004 Reserved on : April 11, 2008 Pronounced on : May 16, 2008 1. WP (C) No. 20045/2004 K.P.S. Sahota . . . Petitioner through : Mr. G.D. Bhandari, Advocate VERSUS Union of India . . . Respondent through : Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate 2. WP (C) No. 20045-A/2004 Satya Vir Singh . . . Petitioner through : Mr. G.D. Bhandari, Advocate VERSUS Union of India . . . Respondent through : Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate CORAM :- THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. We may point out at the outset that the two persons, who are the petitioners in this petition, are Mr. K.P.S. Sahota and Mr. Satya Vir Singh. They had filed two separate OAs, i.e. applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 which were disposed of by a common judgment dated 27.5.2004 rendered by the learned Tribunal. In these circumstances, it was necessary for these petitioners to file two separate WP (C) No. 20045/2004 nsk Page 2 of 3 petitions. However, we find that in respect of each petitioner separate memo of parties is filed and separate court fee is also affixed. Therefore, without going into the technicalities at this stage, when we have heard the arguments also and this aspect is noticed while dictating the judgment, the irregularity can be cured by directing the Registry to assign two writ petition numbers. The second writ petition number can be given as 20045-A/2004. Registry is directed to do it accordingly. 2. These petitions were heard along with the other three writ petitions, namely, WP (C) No. 7796/2006, 20350/2005 & 12563/2004, as the factual and legal matrix in all these cases is common. It relates to the adoption of unfair means for qualifying Appendix-III IREM Examination of 1989. On these allegations, similar charge sheets were served upon these two petitioners as well as the three petitioners in the aforesaid three writ petitions. The aforesaid three writ petitions were allowed by the Tribunal by setting aside the penalty order against which the Union of India filed the writ petitions. Insofar as these two petitioners are concerned, the Tribunal rejected the OAs on the ground that they are time barred. Vide our judgment pronounced in the aforesaid three writ petitions in today’s date, we have set aside the order of the Tribunal and have held that the charge of adopting unfair means for qualifying the aforesaid examination against those petitioners was duly proved and the Tribunal was in error in setting aside those proceedings or the penalty order on the ground that it was a case of ‘no evidence’. In view of our detailed discussion in the said judgment, these petitions are liable to be dismissed even on merits. 3. That apart, we are also in agreement with the judgment dated 27.5.2004 of the Tribunal holding that the OAs filed by the petitioners were time WP (C) No. 20045/2004 nsk Page 3 of 3 barred. The Tribunal in this behalf noted that final penalty order was passed against these petitioners on 20.7.2000 and the OAs were preferred in the year 2003, which was not within the period of one year, which is the limitation prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. These two petitioners had relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the other cases, but that would not save the cases of the petitioners from limitation as the penalty orders in case of these petitioners were independent and cause of action arose on passing of the said orders. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the petitioners to approach the Tribunal within the limitation period if they were aggrieved against the said order. The judgment rendered in the case of other persons, who had challenged the penalty orders passed against them, would not become a fresh cause of action for the petitioners herein. 4. These petitions are to be dismissed on both the counts. We order accordingly. (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE (J.R. MIDHA) JUDGE May 16, 2008 nsk