1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6208 OF 2004 Mahendra Premji Rathod .. Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Sai Kumar Ramamurthy for the petitioner Mr.R.C. Master for respondent no.1 and 2 CORAM: A.P. SHAH & CORAM: A.P. SHAH & CORAM: A.P. SHAH & S.U. KAMDAR, JJ S.U. KAMDAR, JJ S.U. KAMDAR, JJ DATED: 9TH AUGUST 2004 DATED: 9TH AUGUST 2004 DATED: 9TH AUGUST 2004 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.U.KAMDAR, J.): 1. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order and judgment dated 3rd December 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in O.A. No.607 of 1998. Some of the material facts are as under: 2. The petitioner was in employment of the respondents and was working as a M.T. Driver in 2 the Coast Guard Air Station at Daman. On 9th May 1994, he was charge sheeted in respect of charges of smuggling of 858 bottles of contraband liquor. On 19th August 1994, the petitioner replied and denied the said charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and an enquiry was conducted. Ultimately, on the basis of admission of the petitioner, the petitioner was found guilty and was removed from the services on 31st May, 1995. It was the case of the petitioner that since he does not know English, he was not aware of what was happening in the said enquiry and his admission has been wrongfully recorded. On 8th July 1995, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General Commander Coast Guard - Region (West), Mumbai. According to the petitioner, he has not been served with any appellate order by appellate authority. 3. In view of the aforesaid position, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal being O.A. No.607 of 1998. Before the said Tribunal,the petitioner contended 3 that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry. He has further contended that he was not supplied with the enquiry report before the removal order was served upon him. Before the Tribunal, the respondents produced an order passed by the Appellate authority and contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner is beyond time and barred by the law of limitation. The learned Tribunal in paragraph 14 of the Judgment held as under: "In our considered view, since the appellate order has already been issued by the respondents way back in 1996, and the applicant has not impugned the aforesaid order, in which the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 31st May 1995 stands merged, the present OA is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the CA is dismissed without any order as to costs." 4. We heard the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly conceded that in so far as the serving of the appellate order is concerned, there is no acknowledgement of the petitioner of the receipt of such order. In our view in the aforesaid circumstances, the 4 Tribunal was in error in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation alone. We are of the further opinion that the petitioner has made out the case for condonation of delay in view of the fact that if there was no service of the appellate order on him, the period of limitation does not commence. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal requires to be interfered with and accordingly we quash and set aside the said order dt.3rd December 2002 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.607 of 1998 and remand the matter back to the Central Administrative Tribunal with further direction to decide the said appeal on merits by treating the said appeal within time. We request the Tribunal to dispose of the said appeal as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 15th December 2004. We dispose of the petition accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5 Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Stenographer.