ORDER
M. Srinivasan, A.C.J.
1. The impugned order was passed on 3.11.1989 against the petitioner by Senior Regional Manager, T.N.C.S.C Limited, Thanjavur. In the order, it was found that the petitioner was guilty of Manipulating and altering the entries in the records to suit his convenience and he was responsible for a total loss of Rs. 3,16,413-60 to the Corporation. Other charges were also found against him. The punishment imposed was to stop his annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect excluding the period of leave, if any, besides recovery of 25% of loss which worked out to 79,103.40 from out of the total loss of Rs. 3,16,413-60 sustained by the Corporation. An order was passed on 9.12.1983 to recover the said amount of Rs. 79,103-40 at the rate of Rs. 500 per month from his pay. He filed an appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and got stay. The appeal was disposed of on 5.10.1991. All the findings were confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter on 2.1.1996, an order was issued to the petitioner that the sum of Rs. 79,103-40 would be recovered from him from his monthly salary as detailed therein, the 1st instalment being Rs. 1103.40 and the 2nd instalment to 79 instalments being at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month.
2. At that stage, the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 3.11.1989 passed against him. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in limine holding that the petitioner was guilty of laches. The learned Judge pointed out that the order was passed as early as 3.11.1989 and the appeal was dismissed on 25.10.1991. The learned Judge observed that no acceptable reason was given to the court for not challenging the orders earlier.
3. In this appeal, it is contended that the delay in approaching the court has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as follows in paragraph 5 thereof: –
“I submit that though the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal as early as 25.10.91.
I was advised by the 1st Respondent not to take recourse to court of law and assured me that the amount ordered to be recovered, will not be given effect to. Accordingly for the 1st 4 years no action was taken to recover the amount from me. Since it was a compromise formula, I also did not take any steps to approach this Court challenging the orders of punishment. I submit that the matter was thus allowed to rest by all the concerned parties, while so, to my great shock and surprise I received the proceedings Rc.A4/7587/85 dated 2.1.1996 from the 3rd respondent directing recovery of Rs. 79,103.40 from my pay from the month of January 1996″.
In ground H, it is contended that the recovery proceeding were totally without jurisdiction and barred by law of limitation.
4. It is argued that in view of the fact that there was a short of compromise arrangement by which the Officer assured him that no proceedings would be taken against him for recovery, the petitioner did not take any proceedings challenging the order passed against him. We are unable to accept this contention. There cannot be a sort of compromise arrangement as between a Government official and an individual. When an order has been passed in a departmental proceeding in accordance with the rules, if there was such a compromise arrangement, it should have been brought into existence by methods known to law and the procedure prescribed by law should have been followed. The allegation that the 1st respondent assured him that no proceeding would be taken against him and that he need not take recourse to law, cannot be accepted, in-as-much as the 1 st respondent is not the Authority empowered to do so when the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein, the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to enter into any sort of compromise arrangement with the petitioner herein. If there was such arrangement, it would be only illegal. The petitioner who has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot rely upon illegality and contend that he did not come to Court earlier because of that reason.
5. Reliance is placed upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., 1987 (1) L.L.J.500. The following passages are referred to be learned counsel:-
“Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against the this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
“Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner.”
The passages cannot be torn out of context and made use of in this case. The petitioner having been found guilty of misconduct, cannot avail of the Principle hid down in the above case. The ruling has no applicability whatever to this case.
6. The view taken by the learned Judge that the petitioner is clearly guilty of laches, is correct and we do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the learned judge. The appeal is dismissed.