IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1435 of 2003 Date of Decision: 24.04.2008 Raj Rani .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Salil Sagar, Senior Additional Advocate General, Punjab. None for the respondent-Bank. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Notice of motion was issued in this case for 31.07.2003. Thereafter, on 29.03.2004, Mr.N.K.Jakhmi, Advocate, had appeared on behalf of the respondent-Bank. On the last many dates, none had appeared on behalf of the respondent-Bank. Therefore, we have to decide the present writ petition. Smt.Raj Rani was posted as a part time Sweeper with the State Bank of Patiala at Patti Branch of State Bank of Patiala, District Amritsar. She has preferred the present writ petition praying for quashing the orders dated 24.10.2000 and 24.01.2001 passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 08.02.2000 passed by respondent No.2. She has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate her on the job of part time Sweeper. C.W.P.No.1435 of 2003 --2-- It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as a part time Sweeper with the State Bank of Patiala and vide (Annexure P-1) dated 20.04.1999, she was served with a charge-sheet that she had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1800/- out of her saving account on 24.10.1997 and the relevant withdrawal form was not posted in her account through inadvertence and she after taking the advantage of this omission, unauthorizedly withdrew excess amount from the Bank on various dates and thereby withdrew excess amount for a sum of Rs.1272.98 Paise. Furthermore, second charge was that on 02.12.1998, she attempted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2500/- from saving account No.17787 of one Smt.Harbans Kaur by presenting a withdrawal form without Pass-Book and without presenting the account holder. After this, further charge is that she managed to replace the photograph of Harbans Kaur, depositor on the specimen signature card with the photograph of another lady and, thus, attempted to commit fraud. On 06.11.1999, the Enquiry Officer vide his enquiry report (Annexure P-2) held that charge No.1, 2(a&b) have been proved against the petitioner-delinquent employee. On December 06,1999, vide Annexure P-3, the respondent-Bank called upon the petitioner to make her submissions on the enquiry report (Annexure P-2). The petitioner submitted her reply (Annexure P-4). The petitioner was granted personal hearing by the Assistant General Manager-III(J), Disciplinary Authority on 29.01.2000. On February 08, 2000 vide Annexure P-6, penalty of discharge from service of the respondent-Bank with superannuation benefits without disqualification from future employment was awarded. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal (Annexure P-7). The appeal was filed on 28.08.2000 but the same was not entertained as the same was time-barred on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order on 08.02.2000 and the appeal has not been filed within the prescribed statutory period of 45 days. C.W.P.No.1435 of 2003 --3-- Thereafter, on 05.12.2000, an application was filed praying for condonation of delay but the same was also not entertained. Aggrieved against the same, present writ petition has been filed. We are of the view that application praying for condonation of delay ought to have been dealt with by the Appellate Authority after giving due consideration. The Appellate Authority in a very cryptic manner vide order (Annexure P-10) had informed the petitioner that they regret their inability to accede to her request. It was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to consider the plea raised by the petitioner regarding the condonation of delay and pass an order thereupon which reflects the application of mind by the Appellate Authority. Therefore, we direct the authorities to decide the application (Annexure P-9) after giving due consideration and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the rules. It is expected that the order so passed shall reflect application of mind of the authorities. In case, application for condonation of delay is accepted then the writ petition shall be decided in accordance with the rules. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE April 24, 2008 (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) seema JUDGE