HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18905 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.09.2011 **** Mohinder Pal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. CM Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). Petitioner joined the Punjab Roadways as a Conductor on 21.5.1975. It appears as if he started misappropriating public funds from the very inception of his career as vide two separate orders dated 30.8.1976 (Annexure P1) his one increment (each) with cumulative effect were stopped for not issuing tickets to the passengers from whom he had taken the fare. Thereafter, a series of orders dated 14.12.1976, 28.07.1977, 22.05.1978, 16.07.1980, 18.07.1980, 25.03.1982 were passed stopping one or two increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect on similar charges. CWP No.18905 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The above-mentioned orders were passed under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (in short, ‘the Rules’). (3). Petitioner after a long period moved an application under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 which was allowed by the Civil Court The said application was finally dismissed at the appellate stage though with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders before an appropriate forum. It was thereafter that the petitioner filed an appeal on 01.12.2008 (Annexure P7) which has been dismissed by a self-speaking order dated 18.06.2009 (Annexure P8) though primarily on the plea that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner now impugns the above-mentioned orders passed in the years 1976 to 1982 as also the appellate order dated 18.06.2009 essentially on the plea that the major punishment of stoppage of increment(s) with cumulative effect could not be imposed without holding a regular enquiry as ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1990 (6) SLR 75. (4). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order dated 18.06.2009 (Annexure P8). It may be true that a composite appeal preferred by the petitioner on 01.12.2008 was ex facie barred by limitation CWP No.18905 of 2009.doc - 3 – as the period to file departmental appeal prescribed under the Rules stood expired years back. However, the question of expiry of ‘limitation period’ is a mixed question of facts and law and needs to be determined on case to case basis. The quasi-judicial authorities, while deciding such a question are expected to adopt liberal approach with an endeavour to decide the case on merits and such Authorities shall always be guided by the principles laid down under the Limitation Act, 1963. For example, if an appellant in a given case was bona fidely pursuing his case before a wrong forum, the period spent on such lis can be taken into account for condoning the delay. (5). While the petitioner in the case in hand was at fault in not filing separate departmental appeals along with application(s) for condonation of delay in each appeal against the orders to be assailed, the Appellate Authority also went wrong in not considering the factors like as to when did the petitioner approach the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act or how much time period was spent by him in pursuing those proceedings and/or any other bona fide explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the departmental appeal? CWP No.18905 of 2009.doc - 4 – (6). Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent that the appellate order dated 18.06.2009 (Annexure P8) is set aside and while rejecting the petitioner’s composite appeal dated 01.12.2008 being not maintainable, liberty is granted to him to file separate appeals against each punitive order along with an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority shall consider the petitioner’s prayer for condonation of delay in accordance with law though liberally and if he is able to make out a case in relation thereto (may not be necessarily in all the appeals), the delay shall be condoned and the appeal(s) shall be decided on merits. In case the petitioner files such appeal(s) within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the said appeal(s) shall be deemed to have been filed as on 01.12.2008. (7). Appropriate order(s) shall be passed by the Appellate Authority within a period of six months from the date of filing of the fresh appeal(s). (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 09.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge