§§§§§u§§.g@% . muQmxwm Sw Vx3k, «wk. wag n \83 gag%.ammu$ §%§§%. Mag Ejmmwm3-; gv m%%-§. Wm. - «31%Awe“: wmm 111.111 3 amismaag ma n mm~m¢yy Nagg. www.mm. £3. g @Ci § avg g Ea; Amv iama. wa - “mmzai , maiwas - x wm‘ :9 11120 mamm ammwm mmW anéel mm€wm aimanést a Mohan Shrivastava, J. SB: Hon’bie Shri Manindrz 9.2.2010 Mr. S.K‘ Thomos. col Ms. Sum’ta Jain, Pan‘ With the consent 'o: matter is heaxd finally. The instant petition 1’. ‘ on account of the onier dz respondent No.3 after hold petitioner has passed ordex on€ incrsment with cumula Learned couxxsel for order passed by the Discipi was preferred' by the pew Authority i.e Commissione in which he raised substa] imposition of penalty, parf case of no evidence, and e Inquiry Officer, Discipline 2 Inquiry Officer imposed p Lnsel for the petitioner. 31 Lawyer for the State. " learned counsel for the parties, the as been nled by the petitioner aggrieved Lted 8.8.2001 (Annexure A-l) by which ing a departmental inquiry against the of imposition of penalty of'withholding tive effect. the petitioner submits that against the inary Authority on 8.8.2001, an appeal ioner before the Competent Appellate r, Bastar Division vide Annexure A-18, itial grounds to challenge the order of icularly on the ground that it was a ven though, he was exonerated by the mthority disagreeing with the report of alty by holding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. It is c ntented that as the appeal was barred by 23 days, a prayer for c ndonation of delay in filing the appeal was also made by separate y tiling an application for oondonation ..Mr..q5.2..é1i§.ai.o.s... anéam (Entities) m§w$ E20 } V, ma can; (W) mamm amméam WW#WW mmmm .r 7— aiwma of delay, 1'11 which it was staisd that the appSHant was grantsd permission to file the app only on 3.1 1.2001 and the delay was caused due to calculati n of the counsel who advised the petitioner. It was stated the delay is not deliberate and was only bonaiide and therefor the delay in dling the appeal maybe condoned. Application of c ndonation of delay was also supported by the affidavit of the coun e1. It is argued that the ppellate Authority rejected the prayer for condonation of dela in filing the appeal Without due consideration of the gro nd raised by the petitioner in the application and adopted application for condonation of delay. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order in 11.6.2OG1 (Annexure A-ll) departmental inquiry was passed on as per provision contained in Rule 25 of the Chhattisgarh Ci i1 Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henc forth “the Rules of 1966”) the period prescribed for preferring an ppeal is 45 days. The appeal was hled as late as on 6th Febr , 2002. The ground raised by the petitioner in his applicati for condonation of delay does not constitute sufficient Cause or condoning delay and therefore the application was rightly rejec ed. Leained counsel for respondents submits that though there exists provision for co donation of delay in tiling an appeal, e t ' e d u o e m §qi$ amw (W) wan ; @ E20 h mm HI?! snéa r, present is not a fit case Where petitioner was entitled to condonationof delay and masons in this regaxd has been recorded by the Appellant Authority while rejecting the application for iling the appeal vide its order dated mm#wm $Wméa1 condonation of delay in j 19.3.2002 (Annexure A—19). I have considered the Against an order of i nposition of penalty, there is a remedy er Rule 23 ofthe Rules of 1966. In Rule :al has been prescribed which provides of appeal as prescribed undl J1 25 limitation for Filing appi l that an appeal is required Proviso appended to the Authority may entertain a] limitation, if it is satished for not preferring appeal in \ In the application for been stated by the petitio: prefer an appeal only on 3. had submitted an applica on 19. 10.2001, whereup appeal on 3. 11.2001. The a plican‘on for condonation of delay was supported by the anidavit by the petitioner and it has due to bonahde mistake. Rule 25 envisages that the Appellate )peal after the expiry of the period of time. condonation of delay in appeal, it has Ler that he was granted permission to L1.2001 . It is stated that the petitioner for grant of permission to file appeal he was granted permission to prefer the counsel whose advice was sought been stated that the delay Was caused ti o n (a mwqi$ ................ l ......... n.: ....... 11120 marm (WE) mmm ammam Ema—«mama mm§ww yL),_, $W3¥léw The Appellate Authority in its order datsd 19.3.2002 has not considered any of the gmund raiscd by the petitioner in his application for condonation of delay. All that has been recorded in the order is that the order of penalty was passed on 21.8.2001, whereas appeal has been pieferred on 6.2.2002. It has been vaguely recorded without considering any ground raised for condonatioe of delay that the cause assigned for delay is not sudicient. From perusal of the crder passed by the Appellate Authority, it is clear that the Appellate Authority did not properly apply its mind to the application ‘r condonation of delay tiled by the petitioner and mechanic rejected the same Without recording , any finding on specific auses shown in the application for condonation of delay. Th Appellate Authority has adopted a mechanical approach and as failed to take into consideration the pauses shown by the pe ’ ‘oner in his application and thereby failed to exercise jurisdictioh vested in it under the law. In this View of the matter and taking into consideration that the petition itself was filed in the year 2002, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Case is remitted to the Appellate Authority for consideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits without raising any objection with regard to the period of limitation. The m §qim ............................. n ...... m 20 anéel m (W) p snéaxaaTEHm mmmméa mw#wm wm‘nm .,, {W $Wanést h‘ AppeHate Authority shall give the pCtitioner an opportunity of hearing on his memorandum of apyeal and shall thcreupon take decision in accordance Witt? the provision contained in the Rules of 1966 and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, Within an outer limit of 4 m this order. _ The petition is allowe‘i in part to the extent indicated above. ‘onths from the date of receipt of copy of No order as to costs. In View of the above order, LA. No.2 stands disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava ‘ Judge