Rule 12 of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services Discipline and Appeal Rules 1935 hereafter referred to as Rules of 1935 empowered the State Government and the Head of the Department to call, for departmental proceedings and pass appropriate orders and pursuant to this provision the appellant filed a Revision Application before the State Government The State Government rejected the Revision Application and though the order of rejection was made on 5 8 1965, it was number companymunicated to the appellant until 19 12 1965.
The trial companyrt as also the first appellate companyrt took the view that the order of discharge suffered from a serious infirmity inasmuch as it was passed without following the principles of natural justice and on that account it was null and void, but they held that the suit of the appellant was barred by limitation since it was number filed within three years from the date when the original order of discharge was passed against the appellant The result was that the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by the trial companyrt and the dismissal was companyfirmed by the first appellate companyrt The appellant thereupon preferred a second appeal before the High Court.
Since the only ground on which the appellant had lost before the first appellate companyrt was the ground of limitation, the appellant companytended before the High Court that the ground of limitation had been wrongly decided against him and the period of limitation ought to have been companyputed number from 17 7 1961 but from 19 12 1965 when the dismissal of his revision application by the State Government was companymunicated to him.
The appellant was discharged from service on 27 7 61 and the appeal preferred by him against the order of discharge was rejected by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division on 27 9 61.
The appellant being dissatisfied with the order of the State Government filed a suit on 7 8 1968 seeking a declaration that the order of discharge from service was illegal and void since it had been passed without companyplying with the principles of natural justice and according an opportunity to the appellant to show cause why the order of discharge should number be made.
The final order was thus passed by the State Government in revision and it was companymunicated to the appellant on 19 12 1965.The appellant thereupon preferred a further appeal before the Board of Revenue but this appeal also met with the same fate and was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 4 3 64.
We have heard the learned advocates for the parties and after hearing them we are of the view that the High Court was in error in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant, on the ground of limitation.
The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with Special Leave obtained from this Court.
