IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3760 of 2004 SMT.MANI KANTA DEVI wife of Shri Sadanand Singh, residing at Banmankhi, Police Station Banmankhi District Purnia. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna at New Secretariat Building, Patna. 2. The Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna at New Secretariat Building, Patna. 3. The Divisional Commissioner Purnia Division, Purnia. 4. The District Magistrate Cum President District Education Establishment Committee, Purnia. 5. The Deputy Superintendent of Education at Purnia. 6. The Area Education Officer at Banmankhi within the district of Purnia. 7. The Area Education Officer at Bhawanipur within the district of Purnia. ----------- 3 28.09.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief:- “a.For quashing the office order contained in Memo No.1398/ Purnia dated 4.7.2001 issued by the respondent No.5 at Annexure-18 so far it relates to denial of payment of full salary to the petitioner for the period of her suspension and also that a warning was given and that the same would be entered in her service Book. b.For quashing the order dated 29.11.2003 at Annexure-21 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnia, who is the respondent No.3, in service Appeal No.68 of 2002 so far it relates to dismissal of the appeal summarily without disposal of the same on merits on the ground that no application praying for condonation of delay was filed alongwith the memo of appeal. c.For issuance of a direction to the respondent no.5 to make payment of the due amount of salary after deducting the amount of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension i.e. from 21.6.1997 to 20.11.1999.” this Court is of the opinion that the appellate authority 2 ought to have condoned the delay in filing of the appeal specially when there were cogent materials disclosed in the application companying the memo of appeal for condonation of delay. The appellate authority must keep in mind that in a quasi-judicial proceeding the appellate authority is the last authority to examine the question of fact and therefore baring an eventuality of gross unexplained delay, it would always be in the interest of justice to dispose of the service appeal on merits. In the present case delay had been explained by the petitioner stating that a representation was filed against the impugned order on 24.9.2001 against the order of punishment dated 4.7.2001 and therefore when there was a clear proof of filing of such representation by the petitioner before the same appellate authority, namely, Commissioner of Purnea Division he ought to have treated it as the memo of appeal instead of directing the petitioner to file a Service Appeal. Neither the Rules prescribe any format for filing a service appeal nor could the Commissioner have become so technical in relegating the petitioner to file a formal memo of appeal. In that view of the matter, this Court would quash the impugned appellate order (Annexure-21) and remit the matter back to the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea to pass an order on the memo of appeal of the petitioner giving rise to Service Appeal No.68 of 2002. Such appeal will be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this 3 order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)