Though limitation not strictly applicable to Article 226 pleas, rights can't be enforced after unreasonable lapse of time: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently opined that though law of limitation is not strictly applicable to petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time [M Channabasappa vs General Manager]. .Single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna referred to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in UP Power Corporation Ltd vs Ramgopal to hold that High Court should be reluctant to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who "slept over wrongs". ."In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgment, though limitation is not strictly applicable to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time and this Court naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising its discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who slept over wrongs and illegalities," the order said. .The petitioner, in this case, had been appointed as a Junior Engineer in the Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) on October 12, 1988. After he secured a degree, he was transposed as Assistant Engineer in 1990. When the petitioner was working in the cadre of Assistant Engineer, a charge sheet was issued against him in 2002 and thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted. This resulted in an imposition of penalty of ‘censure’ by an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in 2003. After imposition of penalty of censure, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from September, 2003 and not with retrospective effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted.After many representations on the aspect of promotion, the petitioner moved the High Court in 2012, which came to be rejected in 2013. The 2013 order came was challenged by the instant petition before the Court. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner preferred another writ petition where for the first time, he questioned the order of penalty of censure that was imposed upon him in 2003. .Advocate Vijaya Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the petitioner was denied promotion on account of penalty of censure imposed upon him in 2003. The said penalty was imposed by an incompetent authority and, therefore, the penalty is void ab initio, it was submitted. .It was also submitted that any penalty which is imposed by an incompetent authority is non est in the eye of law and can be challenged at any point of time. Opposing these submissions, advocate Harikrishna S Holla, appearing for the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited submitted that the writ petition ought to be dismissed at the threshold, even without going into the merits, on account of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner..After consideration of rival submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner was subject to penalty of censure in 2003 which was never called in question by him at any point in time, prior to the present writ petition..Though there is no limitation prescribed for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, any action challenged should be within a reasonable time, the Court said. .The Court noted that, in the present case, there was a delay of 17 long years in challenging the order of penalty of censure."Throughout, the case of the petitioner was seeking a review of his promotion to be granted from the date on which his Juniors were promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer. After having accepted the penalty of censure and the promotion that was given as a result of penalty of censure from a particular date after about 17 years of imposition of the said penalty and 18 years after placing the case of the petitioner in a sealed cover, the petitioner files second writ petition in Writ Petition No.1007 of 2020 on 25-08-2020. Therefore, there is a delay of 17 long years in challenging the order of penalty of censure.".With these observations, the Court refused to accept the challenge against the censure order that was passed 17 years ago, opining that any challenge to an action must be within a 'reasonable time'. "The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order having been passed by an incompetent authority is a legal ground and can be urged at any later point of time is also unacceptable, as extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is discretionary. Therefore, exercising such discretion, I decline to entertain the challenge to the penalty imposed upon the petitioner 17 years ago. Though there is no limitation prescribed for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, any action challenged should be within a reasonable time. In my considered view, delay of 17 years in raising the challenge to the order of penalty cannot be considered to be proceedings brought about within the reasonable time."It, therefore, dismissed the petition. .[Read Judgement]