IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15398 of 2007. [O&M] Date of Decision: 20th July, 2010. Vinod Kumar Chhabra Petitioner through Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.09.2004 [Annexure P-5] as also the order dated 10.10.2006 [Annexure P-7] whereby his appeal against the aforestated order dated 30.9.2004 has been rejected being time-barred. The petitioner joined as a Clerk in the respondent Bank in the year 1980. It appears that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case and was placed under suspension in the year 1989, followed by a parallel disciplinary action taken by the Bank. In the criminal case under Sections 420/447/468/471 IPC registered vide FIR No. 668 dated 24.10.1990, Police Station, City Panipat, the petitioner earned acquittal vide judgment dated 18.12.1999 [Annexure P-1]. However, the petitioner was held guilty in the disciplinary proceedings which were started after his acquittal in the criminal case and vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2004, the petitioner's pay was reduced to one step for a period of one year, besides denying full pay for the suspension period except the subsistence allowance. While the petitioner claims to have filed an appeal on 17.11.2004 [Annexure P-6], followed by a reminder dated 28.8.2006, the respondent Bank in its reply/affidavit has denied receipt of any such appeal. According to the respondent authorities the petitioner filed a belated appeal on 28.8.2006 which has been rightly rejected being time barred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. In my considered view, the question as to whether or not the petitioner had filed the appeal in the year 2004 need not be gone into by this Court for the reason that the petitioner had admittedly filed a reminder or the Appeal itself on 28.8.2006 which could have been decided on merits without taking a stringent view. It is true that the departmental appeals are also required to be filed ordinarily within the prescribed period of limitation but nothing precludes the Appellate Authority to show magnanimity and entertain a belated appeal after condoning the delay. Given a chance, an employee may explain the delay to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority. No such exercise has been unfortunately undertaken in the present case. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 10.10.2006 is set aside to the extent that the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits, after giving him an opportunity of personal hearing, preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Dasti. July 20, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE