KoduJai Patel, s/o Siiivbalak Patei, '"t/K"^ ••&• 'f^ r\Tnf^Tli- /iQ T.TfSi-^-s-'S^ O //^> '^/l11'-l ^i-jk/V^ U.t. . <-f j -^.t..U. ^, A V/ — . i, A^.t-t l-'onuucala, fost Knajunial, lan nic.+t Satri,c. <M.P1 1 State ot Cliliattisgarii: ''lta-oiign S1iS/TrN-a+Ct-f^'- A rt'-r-i/'Tfl+f-fit"-*^ T^o>iTi<-ir+TTn^iri+ -d. <^< i^Lii^a, i ^ £. -^^JL -L^^ i^lk^L ^^a-A. l-^-fi. ^/ ^-- ^<^i^L ^^L-a-li^^^Jl.^. ^^ UKy BliawaD., Kaipur (Cij-j. 2 Joint Director of A( 'piloci-mi^' fr^ n> Jt—J*a J ^— k 4 t-/ ^-±.^i. I ^^/» ^^i ^ * Uu-ector, Agnciuture iiTlt~tTT>,PT>+ R'i^?3C;TtT>T' (C'' (~^ ,-^'^J-^y ^^-A^Jl.^^^ ^ ^i^*. ^ '-^-••* <L^^1/ • 4. Siib-Divisionai Oiiicer, Agricuiture, Q'ous'els ^PGud.r?i ROR<II, BilasT?UT o. ASsi.SLaixc i-TOjeci uiucer, u-ouiciifa^ [Pendra Koadj, Distt. Bilaspur (C. G) Siut. Meena Shastri, couiisel tor Uie pentioaer. Sint. Sniita Ghai, Paael Lawyer, tbr the State. By allowuig I.A.No.l, ttie docuuient tiled along-with this appiication is taKen on record. Heard on adiaission. 'The peTitioner has tuect thls writ petinon challenguig me order dated 09.6,1999 (Annexure P-3) wtuch was passed by Uie Uisciplinaiy Aumority ia deparuaental proceednigs conducted agauist the petltioner. Adiaittedly, tae order passed by tbe Discipiuiaiy AuUionn- was appealable under Kme '23 ot M.P (C.G) Civil Services (Classitication, Coatrol & Appealj Ruies 1966 but. Tlie pentioner did ^aS'^'W,^ !'(£ ~"%- 'SSBt .:"'"' -^/ ,P._(S)No.3681/200iJ f\ not prefer aiiy appeal against tlie saicl order and atter waituig tor a long penod, Ulis wnt peUtion nas been tiled. In ttiat view of uie ruatter, this petiuon is disposed ot al this sta.ge with an observanon tbat tne petitioner, it so aclvisect, inav lile a depaitmental appeat against ttie order passed by Uie Uiscipliaaiy Auttioritf. At Uiis stage, Srut. Shastd subniits ti^at a long period lias elapsed arter passm.g ot the iaip agned order aad tlie provisions ot limitatioa inay coine in tlie vray of tiliag ttie appeal bv t&e pentioner. Adiuittedly, tliere is a liiuitation prescribed tor liimg ot Ulc appeal against tiie order passed bv Tlie Uisciplinsuv Aut&ority vid.e Ru.ie 25, but the proviso to Kule 25 tias glven lurisdiction to the appellate authonty to entertam ttie appeal atter expiry of the penod ot iiiiuTation tt it is satistied that ttie appeiiant had surticient cause tbr not preferruig the appeal in time. Needless to say that u ttie petiUoner intends to tile a duly coustituted appeai, ne niay avait the reniedy available under Rule 25 ot Uie atbresaid rules and m.ay approacll tlie appellate auttiorit}'' showuig tiie cause tbr not pretemng ttie appeal ui tmie. With. the above observations/ direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- •\ Sunil Kumar Sinha '\ Judge _ ;^1