NOHARLAL VERMA versus DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, JAGDALPUR

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 20-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 774 
j.-
A 
NOHARLAL VERMA 
~ 
II. 
I 
DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED, 
JAGDALPUR 
.._ 
(Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 2008) 
B 
OCTOBER 20, 2008 
[C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
-.(,. 
Service Law: 
c 
Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; S. 55 
and Proviso 1 and 2 to S.55(2): 
Termination of services of a Manager on ground of fi-
nancial irregularities - Dismissal of appeal filed by him in 
.__ 
D 
terms of proviso to s. 55(2) of 1955 Act on ground of limitation 
- Justification of - Held: In terms of provisions under s. 55 of 
' I-
the Act, an employee, if aggrieved by any decision of author-
~ 
ity, could file application within 30 days from such order - In 
the instant case, the employee invoked the provisions u/s. 55 
-, 
I 
E 
of the Act by filing application after two months - Hence, time 
barred - In such circumstances, High Court rightly dismissed 
the petition on ground of limitation - Moreover, there is no 
.__ 
provision under 1960 Act analogous to s. 5 of 1963 Act em-
powering the authority to condone delay if sufficient cause is 
•, 
' 
F 
shown - No infirmity found in the impugned order - Rule 59 of 
the Rules regarding filing of appeal/revision not applicable to 
the case on hand - Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies 
'-(__., 
Rules, 1962 - r.59 - Limitation Act, 1963 - s.5 - Power to 
condone delay 
G 
Limitation Act, 1963; s. 3: 
Limitation - Scope of - Discussed. 
Termination of service of Manager on ground of finan-
~. 
cial irregularities - Punishment ~ Proportionality of - Held: 
H 
774 
~ 
r 
NOHARLAL VERMA v. DISTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL 
775 
BANK LTD., JAGDALPUR 
I 
Punishment imposed is not grossly disproportionatelexces-
A 
sively high - Power of Judicial Review - Exercise of, by High 
Court. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 11 - Res judicata -
Applicability of - Held: In the facts and circumstances of the B 
case, Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim of employee on 
'"' ).-
ground of res judicata. 
Appellant was working as Manager in a Scheduled 
Tribe Service Co-operative Society running under District 
Co-operative Central Bank Limited. He allegedly commit- c 
ted financial irregularities. Disciplinary proceedings were 
initiated against him and he was removed from service 
by the authorities vide order dated April 29, 1982. Ag-
grieved by the order, the appellant filed a departmental 
appeal and then filed an application u/s.55 of the Madhya D 
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Another appli-
I 
cation was filed by him on February 19, 1986, which was 
-4 
dismissed by the authority as time barred. The appeal pre-
ferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Board of Rev-
enue. In the meantime, the application dated June 30, 1982 E 
was considered by the authority. The authority set aside 
the order of removal from service and directed the em-
ployer to reinstate him and to pay all the dues. The em-
player challenged the order by filing an appeal, which was 
allowed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a 
,...'). 
writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court. F 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. From proviso 1 & 2 to sub-section (2) of 
Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societ-
G 
. ;-
ies Act, 1960, it is clear that if an employee, aggrieved by 
any decision taken by the society intends to approach 
the authority, the Registrar, he must invoke provisions of 
Section 55 of the Act by filing an application within thirty 
days from the date of such order or action. In the instant H 
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
-r 
A 
case, admittedly, the order of removal was passed by the 
employer-Bank against the appellant on April 29, 1982. 
Even the first petition under Section 55 of the Act was filed 
by the appellantfapplicant on June 30, 1982, i.e. after two 
months from the date of the order, which was time-barred. 
B The High Court considered the first petition filed by the 
appellant, but even that petition was barred by time. The 
-{,.. 
High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the writ pe-
tition holding that the application filed by the applicant 
was not within the period of limitation prescribed by Sec-
c tion 55 of the Act. [Paras - 18 & 19] [783-G-H; 784-A-B] 
I 
2.1 It was factually incorrect to state that a conces-
~ 
sion was made on behalf of the Bank and it did not object 
that the application was barred by time. But even then, if 
the application 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.