Saroj Kumar Dwedi vs Jila Shakari Kendriya Bank Mydt

REVISION Petition No.1454 of 2010 has been filed, challenging the order of the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a batch of ten appeals, including appeal No.78 of 2007 by the present revision petitioner.

THE revision petition has been filed with a delay of 99 days. In the application for condonation of this delay, it is admitted that the copy of the impugned order was received by the revision petitioner, in the second week of November, 2009, while, the revision petition was filed on 16.4.2010. THE only explanation offered for the delay is that:- "4. That it is stated that the Petitioner is an old person of more than 65 years of age. THE Petitioner was unaware about the procedure and period of limitation for filing the revision petition and did not know who to contact for filing the revision petition. 5. On receipt of the relevant record for filing the revision petition, the documents were sent for translation and thereafter the revision petition is being immediately filed without losing further time. "

We do not find this explanation acceptable. THE revision petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. We have perused the record and heard the counsels for two sides. From a perusal of the revision petition, it is evident that the main grievance of the revision petitioner arises from the fact that while the District Forum had directed release of the entire gratuity amount with interest, the State Commission has reduced the relief in the impugned order directing that:- "For the forgoing reasons we hold that the gratuity could be withheld only to the extent of amount said to have been defalcated and therefore, remaining amount be paid to them within a month from today. "

In the revision petition, it is categorically stated that no disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner, till the filing of the petition i.e. 16.4.2010. During the course of hearing of the revision petition, it was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner on 11.5.2010, that even the sum in question, which is shown to have been embezzled was deposited by the petitioner. However, there is nothing to show that details in this behalf had been submitted before the fora below. On the contrary, in the written submission of the OP/DCC Bank Satna, before the District Forum, details of total recoverable amount of Rs.1,65,455.20 had been submitted. This is apparently why the District Forum itself has observed in its order that:- "In the first sight we find that the claimant had committed some financial irregularities during his tenure of service which is under consideration. "

In the written reply of the respondents to the revision petition, it has been mentioned that the Complainant retired on 30.11.2004 on superannuation. The gratuity amount of Rs.1,18,504/- has been withheld as recovery proceedings before Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Satna in Case No.64 of 2006 are pending against the revision petitioner. In the above background, we find no justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is therefore dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as on merit. No order as to costs.