LAW OF LIMITATION DOES NOT APPLY TO PETITION U/A 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION BUT SUCH RIGHTS CANNOT BE ENFORCED AFTER AN UNREASONABLE LAPSE OF TIME

The Karnataka High Court, in the case of M Channabasappa vs General Manager, opined that although the law of limitation is not applicable to petitions under Article 226 of the constitution, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time.

Facts

12-10-1988 = The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB).

26-09-1990 = He was promoted to Assistant Engineer.

17-07-2002 = While working in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, a charge sheet was filed against him and thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted.

18-07-2003 = The enquiry ended in the imposition of penalty of ‘censure’ by the Disciplinary Authority.

30-09- 2003 = He was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer but not with the retrospective date on which his juniors were promoted.

2012 =  The Petitioner approached the HC seeking direction that he should be promoted with respective effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted.

2013  = the petition came to be rejected.

The petitioner challenged the 2013 order by the instant petition.

2020 = During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner, prefered another petition wherein the petitioner questioned the 2003 order (penalty of censure) and sought a consequential relief of direction to the respondent.

Justice M Nagaprasanna held there is a delay of 17 long years in challenging the order of penalty of censure. Therefore, raising the challenge to the order of penalty cannot be considered to be proceedings brought about within a reasonable time.

Author: Papiha Ghoshal