IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 75 OF 2009 SHRI. SADANAND LAXIMAN PALYEKAR ... Petitioner Versus THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY / SUB COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF GOA STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD ... Respondents Mr.S. Y. Thaly, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 13th March, 2009 P.C. This writ petition has been filed against a communication issued by the respondent on 08/09/2008. 2. By the said communication, respondent informed the petitioner that an appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation and the same, therefore, cannot be entertained. 3. A few facts may be narrated as follows : The petitioner was working as an employee with the respondent. The respondent had instituted departmental proceedings against the petitioner for misconduct. The departmental enquiry was held and by an order dated 01.11.2004, the petitioner was held guilty and was directed to be dismissed from service. After this order came to be passed, the same was served on the petitioner on 22.12.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner had written a letter to the respondent asking as to who is the authority before whom, the appeal could be preferred. This letter was issued by the petitioner on 21.03.2005. It appears that this letter was not replied to by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 28.04.2005. To this notice, the respondents had given a reply that the petitioner had made queries beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, there was no question of entertaining any letter. Subsequently, the petitioner once again called upon the respondents to inform the appellate authority. Ultimately, The respondents issued a letter dated 28.06.2005 informing the petitioner that he is well aware as to which is the appellate authority and the details have been displayed on the notice board of the office. After this letter was issued on 28.06.2005, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority constituted by the Chief Executive Officer of the respondents. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner was informed by the respondents that the appeal cannot be entertained because of the fact that it is filed beyond the period of limitation and the petitioner had failed to appear before the Authority. Being aggrieved by this letter, this writ petition has been preferred. 4. It appears from the order passed by the authority / respondent on 08.09.2008 that the petitioner had not remained present before the appellate authority and, therefore,he was not heard. It is, therefore, also apparent that without hearing the petitioner, the question as to the limitation, was considered by the authority and the appeal was dismissed. Since the petitioner was not heard, it is apparent that the principles of natural justice have not been adhered to. It is also clear that there was no application filed on the part of the petitioner for condonation of delay. The authority, therefore, should have called upon the petitioner to submit an explanation for delay in preferring the appeal and it should have proceeded to decide as to whether the delay should or should not be condoned in preferring the appeal. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the order passed by the authority on 08.09.2008, suffers from legality in as much as the petitioner was not heard on the question of limitation. In view of this, I find that it is necessary to direct the respondent to hear the petitioner on the question of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. 5. In the circumstances, the matter stands remitted back to the respondent for hearing the petitioner on the question of condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. If the petitioner has not filed any application for condonation of delay along with appeal, the petitioner is at liberty to file the same within a period of 15 days from today before the said authority. Upon filing of the said application, the appellate authority shall decide the question as to whether the delay in preferring the appeal should or should not be condoned on merits of the application. If it finds that the delay needs to be condoned, it may hear the appeal on merits. If it finds that the delay cannot be condoned, in the circumstances, it may pass an appropriate order in the matter. 6. The petitioner once again, is directed to prefer the application for condonation of delay within 15 days from today before the appellate authority. No order as to costs. The appellate authority shall give notice of hearing of the application to the petitioners in writing before deciding the application for condonation of delay. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA