IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10363 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 28, 2010. Surat Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.B.S.Chahal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner was working as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways and has since retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Vide an order dated 21.11.1986 (Annexure P-1), four annual grade C.W.P.No .10363 of 2010 2 increments of the petitioner were stopped with cumulative effect allegedly without holding any enquiry or serving any show cause notice. When the petitioner came to know about the said order, he filed a departmental appeal which was turned down by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) being barred by limitation. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application on 17.9.2008 and it appears that no decision taken thereupon has been conveyed to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. There can indeed be no doubt that even a departmental appeal is required to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Rules and/or within some reasonable period. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether or not the petitioner has got ample opportunity to avail the alternate remedy? If the petitioner can establish that the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on him without issuing any show cause notice or enquiry, suffice it to say that no deemed knowledge can be attributed to him. In other words, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to explain the cause of delay, if any. Unfortunately, the Appellate Authority has not considered this aspect of the matter. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 4.4.2006 (Annexure P-3) is set-aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to re-consider the explanation/reasons, if any, which the petitioner C.W.P.No .10363 of 2010 3 may submit to seek the condonation of delay. If the Appellate Authority is satisfied with that explanation, it shall condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. May 28, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE