IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 7797/2008 (OA 1446/2001) Date of Decision: 31.07.2009. Shri Bal Krishan. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting10? For the petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral) The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 on 4.2.1991. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the following penalties upon the petitioner on 20th March, 1994: 1. Stopped three annual increments of the official with cumulative effect. 2. Whole period of absence from 22.5.1990 to 28.5.1990 treated as absence from duty without pay and allowances. 3. Recovery for the Kms. be plied vehicle of his own without any authority be effected (Rs.838/-) from him and deposited into Govt. treasury as revenue of the Govt. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? : 2 : He preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order dated 20th March, 1994 on 10.3.1997. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 21.10.2000, after seeking comments from the Conservator of Forests, Rampur Forest Circle and also on the ground of delay and laches. It was not open for the Appellate Authority to seek comments from the Disciplinary Authority, who had imposed the penality on 20th March, 1994. The Appellate Authority has to discharge the functions independently. The function of the Appellate Authority is to go into the entire case of the appellant. He has to go through the memorandum of articles of charges, reply, inquiry report, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the grounds taken in the appeal. He has to ensure that there is no violation of mandatory provisions of law while holding the inquiry and at the stage of imposition of penalty. In the present case, the Appellate Authority instead of applying its independent mind, was swayed by the comments of Conservator of Forests, Rampur Forest Circle. He has failed to discharge the duties of Appellate Authority, in accordance with law. It is true that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner after three years from the imposition of penalty. The appeal being statutory in nature, is required to be filed within the period prescribed. However, the appeal can be : 3 : entertained beyond the period of limitation prescribed, in case there are cogent reasons to condone the delay and to avoid miscarriage of justice. Infact, proviso to Rule 25 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 also provides that the Appellate Authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the period of forty five days, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. The order dated 21.10.2000 is also not a speaking order. The order passed by the Appellate Authority must be self contained and reasoned. Accordingly, in view of the observations made above, the impugned order dated 21.10.2000 is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh by a speaking and self contained order. The Appellate Authority shall also afford the right of oral hearing to the petitioner. The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal within a period of eight weeks from today. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. July 31, 2009. Bhupender