Slnflle Beneh IN THE HIGH COUKT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S.) N0. (SCC3 /2008 PETITIONER ^r L^&'36y. .^'3^r%...--"""" ^"^•^ f) ^_Sandeep Maheshwari S/o RanySingh Maheshwari Dismissed JaU Pahri Up-Jail Katghora District Korba (C.G.) And resident of vUlage and Post MEtndir Hasoud, District Raipur VERSUS RESPONDENT ^^un 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Jail D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Director General of Jail Raipur, Dista-ict Raipur (C.G.). 3) Superintendent ofJaU Central JaU BUaspiu- (C.G.) 4)' The Suerintendent of Up Jail Katghora, District Korba(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA \ ^ HIGHCOURTQFCHHATnSGARHATBILASPUR PETmONER WRTT PETmON (S) No. 6609 of2008 : Sandeep Maheshwari. VERSUS -AtaUt RESPONDENTS : StateofChhattisgarh&Others.. WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INMA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Deepak Jam, Advocate for thie petitioner; Shri N.N.Roy, Paael Lawyerforfhe State/respondenfs. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10th day of Febmaiy, 2010) 1. The petitioner seeks to ehallenge the order dated 13.6.2008 (Annexure P/l) whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2, has been dismissed on account ofbeing time barred. , 2. Leamed counsel appearing for Ifae petitioner submits that the removal order was passed on 4 January, 2008 by the Superiptendent ofjail, Central Jail, Bilaspur. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director General (Jail) on 15.04.2008. Shri Jain submits that there was some delay in filing the statutory appeal. However, the respondent No. 2 has dismissed the appeal on tecBnical ground and not on merits, wifhout recording asto how much was Ifae delay and without assigning any reason for not condoning the delay. 3. Be tfaat as it may, since the petitioner has an altemative remedy of preferring statutory appeal agiinst the order passed by the disciplinary . authority, the delay, ifany, in fying fhe statutory appeal is condoned. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 2 for considering the triatter afresh on its own merits and its perspective, after following the due process oflaw, as e3q)editiously as possible. 4. Wifh the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. s.o'-Cr*'"" Judge DttlliWii :'^;5^g?^S^