Sri. M.P. Vrushabendraswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2024
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the institution of disciplinary proceedings were time
barred since the alleged act of misconduct was of 2012,
has also force. Ordinarily, section 8(3)(d) of the 1984 Act
prescribes a period of five years as limitation. Of course,
there is some legal literature availing to hold that this
limitation is not a Thumb Rule but the circumstances that
take the Thumb from the Rule are not stated while
instituting the belated disciplinary proceedings. Therefore,
the Coordinate Bench decision in M.R.VADDAR supra
comes to the aid of petitioner. The submission of Panel
Counsel that immediately after receiving the complaint,
the subject proceedings have been instituted, cannot be
accepted without manhandling the text of section 8(3)(d).
Courts too interpret law and ordinarily, do not make it.