Skip to content


V. Durgappa Vs. the Chief Engineer and Disciplinary Authority, Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 17879 of 1979
Judge
Reported inAIR1980Kant167
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantV. Durgappa
RespondentThe Chief Engineer and Disciplinary Authority, Karnataka Electricity Board, Bangalore and ors.
Advocates:V.S. Gunjal, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....the assistant commissioner to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of land and imposed cost writ appeal held, the way in which the matter is being handled warrants imposition of costs in the appeal also. order of the single judge is justified. - , the chairman, karnataka electricity board, rejected the appeal on the sole ground that the appeal was barred by time and the petitioner had not explained the delay beyond 5-6-1978. 3. it is well settled principle of law that in cases where law of limitation is attracted each and every day's delay is to be explained by the person who is guilty of laches......question the legality of the order impugned at exhibit 'h' passed by the 2nd respondent, but has asserted that he ought to have taken the totality of the circumstances and should have condoned the delay on the part of the petitioner. so long as the discretionary power vested in the proper authority has been exercised by proper application of mind, this court under art. 226 of the constitution cannot interfere with that discretionary exercise of power. in this view of the matter petition is dismissed without rule being issued. 4. petition dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Petitioner Durgappa, who is an employee of the Karnataka Electricity Board, was working as Supervisor. However, disciplinary action came to be taken against him and after due enquiry the Disciplinary Authority passed an order whereby be was demoted to the post of operator in the services of the Board and also he was inflicted with the penalty of not being considered for promotion for a further period of 3 years. That order is produced at Exhibit 'A' to the petition.

2. In accordance with the relevant rules applicable to his service conditions under the Board he preferred an appeal on 25-8-1978 against the order at Exhibit 'A', dated 12-1-1978. While that appeal was kept in abeyance be made a representation dated 3-10-1978 explaining the delay in filing the appeal beyond a period of 30 days prescribed for lodging such appeals. The appellate authority, viz., the Chairman, Karnataka Electricity Board, rejected the appeal on the sole ground that the appeal was barred by time and the petitioner had not explained the delay beyond 5-6-1978.

3. It is well settled principle of law that in cases where Law of Limitation is attracted each and every day's delay is to be explained by the person who is guilty of laches. The view taken by the 2nd respondent Chairman, while rejecting the memorandum of appeal on grounds of limitation is legally correct. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not really question the legality of the order impugned at Exhibit 'H' passed by the 2nd respondent, but has asserted that he ought to have taken the totality of the circumstances and should have condoned the delay on the part of the petitioner. So long as the discretionary power vested in the proper authority has been exercised by proper application of mind, this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot interfere with that discretionary exercise of power. In this view of the matter petition is dismissed without rule being issued.

4. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //