Holding

The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s application under Section 55 was time‑barred, no power exists to condone the delay, Rule 59 does not apply, the Tribunal’s res judicata finding was erroneous but the High Court’s decision stands, and the removal was not grossly disproportionate.

Summary

Noharlal Verma, a manager of District Co‑operative Central Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur, was removed from service on 29 April 1982 for alleged financial irregularities. He filed a departmental appeal and subsequently an application under Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 on 30 June 1982, more than the 30‑day period prescribed. The application was dismissed as time‑barred; the Co‑operative Tribunal later set aside the removal, but the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed Verma’s writ petition. The Supreme Court examined whether the 30‑day limitation could be condoned, whether Rule 59 of the 1962 Rules applied, and whether the Tribunal erred on the ground of res judicata and the proportionality of the removal. The Court held that the Section 55 application was indeed time‑barred, there is no provision analogous to Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay, Rule 59 does not apply, and the Tribunal’s finding of res judicata was erroneous but the High Court’s overall conclusion was correct. The removal was not grossly disproportionate, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The application under Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960 must be filed within 30 days; was the appellant's filing time‑barred?
Whether the limitation period can be condoned under any provision analogous to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Whether Rule 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Co‑operative Societies Rules, 1962 is applicable to the appellant's application.
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the appellant's claim barred by res judicata.
Whether the removal of the manager constitutes a grossly disproportionate punishment warranting judicial review.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 11
Limitation Act, 1963s. 3, s. 5
Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960s. 55

Subjects

limitation periodservice terminationco-operative societiesdisciplinary actionres judicataproportionalityjudicial review

Judgment

j.-

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 774

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
terms of proviso to s. 55(2) of 1955 Act on ground of limitation
D '
- 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

of the Act by filing application after two months - Hence, time
E
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 '
shown - No infirmity found in the impugned order - Rule 59 of
F 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
case, Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim of employee on B
'"' ).- 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-
cation was filed by him on February 19, 1986, which was
-4 I
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
was considered by the authority. The authority set aside E
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 was not filed within the period of limita-
D tion, the so-called concession would neither bind the Bank
nor invest jurisdiction or power in the authority to enter-
tain such application which was barred by limitation.. _ I I

[Paras - 25& 26] [786-E-F]
2.2 Limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit,
E
appeal or application is barred by limitation, a Court or an
Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction, power or au-
thority to entertain such suit, appeal or application and to
decide it on merits. [Para - 27] [786-G]

F . 2.3 Bare reading of the provision under s. 3(1) of the I

'f-'1.
Limitation Act, 1963 leaves no room for doubt that if a suit
is instituted, appeal is preferred or application is made
<=
after the prescribed period, it has to be dismissed even I

~
though no such plea has been raised or defence has been '
~-

G set up. [Para - 29] [787-C]
J_I;'--
2.4 There is no provision analogous to Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 allowing the authority to condone '
delay if "sufficient cause" is shown. [Para - 30] [787-D]
3.1 The appellant was holding position of trust and
H
NOHARLAL VERMA v. DISTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL 777
j BANK LTD., JAGDALPUR

was Manager of a Bank. The charges levelled against him A
were serious in nature concerning misappropriation of
money. It is true that the amount was not big and it was
also repaid and the Bank has not suffered. But even then
the Manager of a Co-~perative Bank was involved in fi-
nancial irregularities. The Bank was satisfied that he B
should not be retained in service and passed an order of
removal. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that
such punishment is grossly disproportionate or exces-
sively high. Normally in exercise of power of 'judicial re-
view', a writ court will not substitute its own judgment or c
decision for the judgment or decision of a disciplinary
authority unless it comes to the conclusion that it has
shocked the conscience of the Court or the punishment
is such that no 'reasonable man' would impose such pun-
ishment. [Paras - 32 & 33] [787-G-H; 788-A-C]
D
Notinghamshire County Council v. Secretary of State,
1986 AC 240: (1986) 1 All ER 199 - referred to.
3.2 No infirmity is found even in the final decision
taken by the Bank which deserves interference by this E
Court. [Para - 34] [788-E]
4. On facts, the High Court was right in observing
that the Tribunal was in error in allowing the appeal and
dismissing the claim of the appellant on the ground of
•x res judicata. [Para - 31] [787-E] F
5. Apart from the fact that Rule 59 of the Madhya
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 merely lays
down procedure of appeals instituted within the period
of limitation and provides for removal of defects, neither
the provisions relating to appeals nor of revisions apply G
to the case on hand. [Para - 22] [785-C-D]
CASE LAW REFERENCE
1986AC 240: (1986) 1 All ER 199 referred to Para -33
H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6161
T
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.5.2005 of the
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Writ Petition No. 283
of 2001
..
B
Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Appellant.
~ )

Raj Kumar Gupta, Sunil Kumar Gupta and Praveen
Chaturvedi for the Respondents.

c The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against judgment and 1~

order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
D Chhattisgarh on May 04, 2005 in Writ Petition No. 283 of 2001.
By the said order, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition
filed by the appellant-petitioner and confirmed the order passed '--.---
by the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal
on January 22, 2001 in Second Appeal No. 560 of 1999.
E 3. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the
appellant herein was working as Manager in the Large Area
Multi-Purpose Society ('LAMPS' for short). Between August,
1977 and August, 1981, the appellant was the Manager in the
Schedule Tribe Service Co-operative Society, Kanker. He, at
F that time, committed financial irregularities. Disciplinary pro- --;
ceedings were initiated against him and by an order dated April y
29, 1982, passed by the Chairman, District Co-operative Cen-
tral Bank Ltd., Jagdalpur (Bastar), he was removed from ser-
vice. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal on April
G 30, 1982. Since he had not been communicated anything as to
what had happened to the said appeal, the appellant on June
30, 1982 filed an application under Section 55 of the Madhya
Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act') to the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies,
Raipur. According to the appellant, the application was made
H
NOHARLAL VERMA v. DISTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL 779
BANK LTD., JAGDALPUR

to the Joint Registrar, Raipur as District Bastar/Jagdalpur was A
1 within the territorial jurisdiction of Raipur. As stated by the peti-
tioner, Joint Registrar then came to be appointed for District
Bastar for Jagdalpur Area. Another application was, therefore,
made on October 08, 1985 by the petitioner before the Joint
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jagdalpur. On February 19, B
1986, the Joint Registrar, Jagdalpur dismissed the application
filed by the petitioner as time barred. The appellant preferred
... )- an appeal against the said order before the Board of Revenue,
Gwalior. However, the said appeal was also dismissed by the
Board on June 14, 1990. c
4. On October 22, 1990, the application filed by the peti-
tioner on June 30, 1982 before the Joint Registrar, Raipur was
forwarded to Deputy Registrar, Kanker for adjudication. The
Deputy Registrar, Kanker treated the case as within the period
of limitation, considered it on merits and set aside the order of D
removal vide his order dated May 18, 1994. He als.o directed
the Bank to pay all dues to the applicant.
r 5. The respondent Bank challenged the said order by ap-
proaching the State Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed
the appeal filed by the Bank on the ground of res judicata ob- E
serving .that an application filed by the appellant was dismissed
by Joint Registrar, Jagdalpur and the said order was confirmed
by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior dismissing the appeal which
had become final.
F
,x 6. The appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by
the Tribunal preferred Writ Petition No. 283 of 2001 in the High
Court of Chhatisgarh, which as stated above, was dismissed
by the High Court. The said order is challenged in the present
appeal.
G
7. On July 06, 2006, notice was issued to the respondents.
- ;:J....,· Affidavit-in-reply and affidavit-in-rejoinder were thereafter filed.
An order was passed directing the Registry to place the matter
for final hearing and that is how the matter has been placed
before us. H
780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that +
theJribunal as well as the High Court were wrong in dismissing
the claim of the appellant. It was contended that the Tribunal
was not right in holding that the appeal filed by the appellant
B was barred by resjudicata. The High Court was, therefore, right
in observing that the Tribunal committed an error of law in treat-
ing the appeal as barred by res judicata. The High Court, how-
ever, went wrong in not allowing the writ petition and in coming
to the conclusion that the application filed by the appellant/peti-
C tioner under Section 55 of the Act was barred by limitation and
the Registrar had no power, authority or jurisdiction to entertain
such dispute. The counsel contended that when the matter came
up before the Tribunal,' it was stated on behalf of the ·respon-
dent-Bank through its counsel that the application was 'within
D time' and hence, it was decided on merits. Thereafter, it was
not open to the Bank to contend that the application was be-
yond time and aelay could not be condoned.
10. The learned counsel submitted that even on merits,
the ca·se did not call for pu·nishment of removal. Certain allega-
E tions were made and even if it is assumed for the sake of argu-
me'nt that all the allegations were true, the appellant could not
have been removed ffom·ser\tice. No financial loss has been
caused to the respondent-Bank. The appellant has enormously
suffered and he is· out of employment si.nce more than fifteen
F years. Hence, even if this Court comes to the conclusion that
proceedings could have been initiated against the appellant and
he could have been punished, on the facts and in the circum-
stances of the case,.this Court may direct the Bank to re-instate
the appellant without back wages so that the appellant as well
G as his family members would not be deprived of livelihood and
would not starve.
' ' ' ! I I I ' ( ~

11: The learned counsel for the.respondent-Bank, on the
other hand, supported the order passed by the Tribunal and
confirmed by the High Court. It was contended that the High
H
NOHARLAL VERMA v. DISTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL 781
BANK LTD., JAGDALPUR

Court was right in holding that the application filed by the appel- A
-1 lant was barred by limitation. The counsel urged that the Act
provides by laying down maximum period of limitation beyond
which no application can be entertained by the Registrar. If it is
so, no grievance can be made if the application filed by the'
appellant was treated as barred by time. The counsel did not B
seriously challenge the view taken by the authorities that the
application could. not be dismissed on the ground of res judi-
... )- cata but submitted that the application was time barred .
12. The counsel also submitted that the Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies, Kanker was not right when he stated c
that consent was given by the counsel appearing on behalf of
the Bank that the application filed by the appellant under Sec-
tion 55 of the Act be treated within time and the application was
admitted. The counsel, however, stated that even if the counsel
for the Bank had stated that the application submitted by the D
appellant could be treated within the period of limitation, such
concession being concession against law would not bind the
··~
Bank. If the statute stipulates a particular period of limitation, no
concession or order would make an application barred by time
to be within the limitation and the authority had no jurisdiction to E
consider such application on merits.
13. On merits, the counsel urged that considering the to-
tality of facts and circumstances, particularly, charges levelled
against the appellant and proved at the inquiry which related to
financial irregularities, if the appellant was removed from ser- F
vice, it cannot be said that no order of removal could have been
r ~ passed. The appellant was a Bank employee and holding the
office of Manager, a position of trust. It is in the light of the said
fact that his case was required to be considered which was
done and punishment was imposed. G
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
- '\-1_ having applied our mind to the facts and circumstances of the
case, in our opinion, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves
to be dismissed. The High Court has not committed any error
H
782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 14 S.C.R.

A of law which requires to be interfered with in exercise of discre-
tionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Con-
stitution.
15. So far as resjudicata is concerned, in our opinion, the
appellant is right in submitting that the Tribunal was not justified
8 in holding that the application filed by the appellant was barred
by res judicata. It is clear from the facts stated hereinabove that
the application was filed by the appellant to Joint Registrar,
Raipur. It was pending. Meanwhile, however, District Bastar had
its own Registry and hence, an application was submitted to
C District Registrar, Bastar. The application preferred by the ap-
pellant to the Joint Registrar, Raipur, in the circumstances, be-
came infructuous. It was not decided on merits. As per settled
law, such decision does not operate as res judicata. The High
Court was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the
D Tribunal was in error in dismissing the application on the ground
of res judicata. That part of the order passed by the Tribunal
was, therefore, rightly not approved by the High Court.
16. But so far as limitation is concerned, admittedly, the
E disciplinary proceedings culminated against the appellant in an
order of removal. Such order was passed on April 29, 1982. An
application against the said order was made for the first time
by the appellant/ applicant on June 30, 1982, i.e. after more
than two months.
F 17. Now, Section 55 of the Act empowers the Registrar to
determine conditions of employment in societies. The said sec-
tion, as it then stood, read as under;
55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of
employment in societies. -( 1) The Registrar may, from time
G to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of
employment in a society or class of societies and the
society or class of societies to which such terms and
conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with
the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf.
H
NOHARLAL VERMA v. DISTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL 783
BANK LTD., JAGDALPUR

Provided that in the case of co-operative credit structure, A
1 the Registrar may frame rules governing the terms and
conditions of employment on the basis of the guidelines
specified by the National Bank.
(2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms
of employment working conditions and disciplinary action B
taken by a society, arises between a society and its
~ ).. employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him
not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the
dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society
and its employees: c
Provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to above
shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him
within thirty days from the date of order sought to be
impugned:
D
Provided further that in computing the period of limitation
under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining
~-..,..--
copy of the order shall be exclused. (emphasis supplied)
18. Plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it more
E
than clear that when a dispute regarding terms of employment,
working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society
and its employees arises, the officer specified therein will de-
cide such dispute which shall be binding on the society and its
employees. The first proviso to sub-section (2) of the said sec-
tion prohibits the Registrar from entertaining the dispute unless F
r -::Y
such dispute is presented to him within thirty days from the date
of the order impugned. The second proviso declares that in
computing the period of limitation, the time requisite for obtain-
ing copy of the order would be excluded. It is thus clear that if an
employee, aggrieved by any decision taken by the society in- G
tends to approach the Registrar, he must invoke provisions of
_ . . . .r--~- Section 55 of the Act by filing an application within thirty days
,.
from the date of such order or action.

19. In the instant case, admittedly, the order of removal
H
784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] '.14 S.C.R.

A was passed by the Bank against the appellant on April 29, 1982.
Even the first petition under Section 55 of the Act was filed by +,
the appellant/applicant on June 30, 1982, i.e. after two months
which was tip1e-barred. The High Court considered the first
petition filed 0y the appellant herein before the Registrar, Raipur,
B but even that petition was barred by time. The High Court was,
the.refore, _right in dismissing the writ petition holding that the
. a}>plication' filed by the applicant was not within the period of
-- ·limitation prescribed by Section 55 of the Act.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submit-
C ted ,that tile petition filed by the applicant ought to have been
tr~ated within the period of limitation. In support of such conten-
tion, he relied on two aspects.
21. Firstly, the provisions of appeals and revisions under
the Act. C~apter X provides for filing of appeals and revisions.
0
Referring to rule making power of the State (Section 95), the
counsel submitted that the State Government has power to pre-
scribe procedure in presenting and disposal of appeals [Clause
(gg) of sub-section (2) of Section 95]. In exercise of the said
power, the State Government has framed rules known as the
E Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1962 (herein-
after referred to as 'the Rules'). Chapter IX as then stood pro-
vided procedure in "Appeals and Revisions". Rule 59 of the Rules
laid· down procedure in filing an appeal to the State Govern-
ment or to the Registrar. Sub-rules (6), (7) and (8) to which our
F atteption has been invited by the learned counsel read thus;
_;. ,_--

(6)'1f the appellate authority finds that the appeal presented
does not conform to any of the said provisions, it shall
make a notice on the appeal to that effect and may call
upon- the appellant or his agent to remedy the defects
G
within-a period of seven days of the receipt of the notice
to do so or in case the appeal has not been presented
within the prescribed time limit to show cause within the
said period of seven days why it should not be dismissed
as time-barred by the appellate authority.
H
NOHARLAL VERMA v. DiSTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL 785
BANK LTD., JAGDALPUR

(7) If the defect is remedies or the cause shown by the A
-..,-- appellant or his agent satisfies the appellate authority, the
appellate authority may proceed to consider the appeal.
(8) If the appellant or his agent fails to remedy the defects
or to show cause to the satisfaction of the appellate
authority within the said period, the appellate authority B
may, if the appeal is not presented within the time-limit,
dismiss the appeal as time, barred. In cases where it is
• J- considered necessary to give a hearing, the appellate
authority may fix a date for hearing, of which due notice
shall be given to the appellant or his agent. c
22. We are of the view that the aforesaid provisions do
not apply to the case on hand. Apart from the fact that Rule 59
merely lays down procedure of appeals instituted within the
period of limitation and provides for removal of defects, neither
D
the provisions relating to appeals nor of revisions apply to the
case on hand.
_. 23. In our view, the scheme of the Act is clear. Chapter X
--r
of the parent Act which deals with appeals and revisions ap-
plies to those cases where orders have been passed by the E
authorities and officers under the Act and a person is aggrieved
by such orders. In the present case, the action is taken not by
an authority or officer under the Act but by the respondent-Bank.
The appellant, therefore, rightly applied to the Registrar under
Section 55 of the Act complaining against such action. The ap- F
pellant could not have preferred an appeal under the Act either
to the Registrar or to the State Tribunal. The provisions of Chap-
t ~
ter X of the Act relating to appeals and procedure laid down in
Chapter IX of the Rules, therefore, had no application. The first
ground in support of the application that it should be treated as G
within the period of limitation has thus no force.
24. Secondly, the appellant contended that the learned
"~~ counsel appearing for the Bank conceded that the application
filed by the appellant/applicant was within time and hence, the
Registrar took up for consideration the said application and H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A decided on merits. Thereafter, it was not open to the Bank to
contend that the application was barred by limitation. The order --t-
of the High Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside. It was
also submitted that had it been contended before the Registrar
that the application was not within the period of limitation pre-
B scribed by l~w. the appellant could have satisfied the authority
or would have taken other steps, .but he was deprived by the
concession on behalf of the Bank. It has caused serious preju-
dice to the appellant and the Bank cannot be allowed to 'blow -l~
hot and cold' by taking inconsistent pleas and by raising 'tech-
c nical' defence of limitation.
25. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank rightly
submitted that the plea raised by the appellant has no force. It
was submitted that there was no concession by the Bank. Rely-
ing on Zimni, the counsel submitted that on July 06, 1993, i.e.
D the day on which the concession was said to have been made,
the Presiding Officer was not present as he was on a tour. No
proceeding took place on that day. It was, therefore, factually
incorrect to state that a concession was made on behalf of the ~
Bank and it did not object that the application was barred by
E time.
26. But even otherwise, according to the counsel, if the
application was not within the period of limitation, the so-called
concession would neither bind the Bank nor invest jurisdiction
or power in the authority to entertain such application which was
F barred by limitation. In other words, according to the counsel,
the concession was against the provision of law, which would
not bind the Bank.
'i- 1

27. Now, limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit,
appeal or application is barred by limitation, a Court or an Ad ju-
G
dicating Authority has no jurisdiction, power or authority to en-
tertain such suit, appeal or application and to decide it on mer-
_....l-.___,,
,. .
its.
28. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963
H reads as under;
NOHARLAL VERMA v. DISTRICT CO-OP. CENTRAL 787
BANK LTD., JAGDALPUR
~-
(3) Bar of limitation.-(1) Subject to the provisions A
contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit
instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after
the prescribed period shall be dismissed although
limitation has not been set up as a defence.
(emphasis supplied) B
r ;.-
29. Bare reading of the aforesaid provision leaves no room
for doubt that if a suit is instituted, appeal is preferred or appli-
cation is made after the prescribed period, it has to be dis-
missed even though no such plea has been raised or defence c
has been set up. In other words, even in absence of such plea
by the defendant, respondent or opponent, the Court or Author-
ity must dismiss such suit, appeal or application, if it is satisfied
that the suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation.
30. As stated earlier, Section 55 allows an aggrieved party D
to approach the Registrar within a period of thirty days. There is
~~

no provision analogous to Section 5 of the Limitation act, 1963
allowing the Registrar to condone delay if "sufficient cause" is
shown. In view of this fact, in our opinion, the contention of the
learned counsel for the Bank is well founded that the applica- E
tion submitted by the appellant was barred by time.
31. To us, the High Court was right in observing that the
Tribunal was in error in allowing the appeal and dismissing the
claim of the appellant on the ground of res judicata. The High
t 'l,-· Court, therefore, considered the said question independently F
and held that the Bank was right in submitting that the appellant
had not approached the Registrar within the period prescribed
by law and his application was liable to be dismissed.
32. So far as the prayer by the appellant that he has suffi-
G
ciently suffered and should be re-instated in service without back
~ wages also cannot be accepted. The appellant was holding
position of trust and was Manager of a Bank. The charges lev-
eled against him were serious in nature concerning misappro-
priation of money. It is true that the amount was not big and it
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A was also repaid and the Bank has not suffered. But even then
the Manager of a Co-operative Bank was involved in financial
irregularities. The Bank was satisfied that he should not be re-
tained in service and passed an order of removal.
33. In our opinion, by no stretch of imagination, it can be
B said that such punishment is grossly disproportionate or exces-
sively high. Normally in exercise of power of 'judicial review', a
writ court will not substitute its own judgment or decision for the
judgment or decision of a disciplinary authority unless it comes
to the conclusion that it has shocked the conscience of the Court
C or the punishment is such that no 'reasonable man' would im-.
pose such punishment or in the words of Lord Scarman in
Notinghamshire County Council v. Secretary of State, 1986
AC 240 : (1986) 1 All ER 199 that the decision is so absurd that
one is satisfied that the decision maker at the time of making
D decision 'must have taken leave of his senses'.
34. In our considered opinion, the case does not fall in any
of the categories enumerated by the Courts in several cases.
We, therefore, see no infirmity even in the final decision taken
E by the Bank which deserves interference by this Court.
35. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed and is dismissed, however, without any order as to
costs.
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.