IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13954 of 2009 KRISHNA KUMAR, son of Sri Shyam Kishore Yadav, permanent resident of village Anandpur, P.S. Surajgarha, District Lakhisarai, presently posted as Constable bearing No. 921406017, C.I.S.F. Unit, Airport Security Group, Imphal, Manipur Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi 2. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), Airport Sector Headquarter, 13 C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03 3. The Additional Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), Airport Sector Headquarter, 13 C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03 4. The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), Airport Sector Headquarter, 13 C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-03 5. The Deputy Inspector General, Airport (E & NE) Headquarters, Kolkata, C.I.S.F. (Ministry of Home Affairs), Premise No. 553, East Kolkata Township, Kasba, Kolkata, 107 6. The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), C.I.S.F. Unit, Airport Security Group, Patna-14 (Bihar). 7. The Deputy Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs), C.I.S.F. A.S.G. Unit Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi (Jharkhand) ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Birendra Prasad Verma, Sr. Advocate, Dr. Mrityunjay Kr. Gautam, Yogendra Kumar & R.N. Roy, Advocates For the Union of India :Mr. Rashsid Izhar, Advocate 03/ 29.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the Union of India, Sri Rashid Izhar, who prayed for time to file counter affidavit, but the order which this Court is proposing to pass does not admit of any counter affidavit, in the circumstances, prayer to grant time for filing the counter affidavit is rejected. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as constable in the C.I.S.F. at Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi. He has been visited with a punishment order imposing certain punishments, but has been retained in service, as would appear from the 2 punishment order, bearing letter No. 1696 dated 12.11.2007, Annexure-5, against which petitioner preferred appeal on 28.9.2008, which has been rejected under order, bearing No. 4012 dated 24.11.2008, Annexure-6 observing that the appeal being barred by limitation and petitioner having not made any request to condone the delay with due justification, the same was rejected. Against the appellate order dated 24.11.2008, Annexure-6, petitioner preferred revision, which has been dismissed under order, bearing letter no. 5438 dated 19.6.2009, Annexure-7 and the revisional authority having considered the merit of the matter, has not chosen to grant relief prayed for and to reduce or set aside the punishment. Petitioner by filing writ application has challenged the aforesaid three order, as contained in Annexures-5,6 and 7 on the ground that punishment imposed is bereft of consideration of his written statement. He further assails the appellate order dated 24.11.2008, Annexure-6 on the ground the appellate authority which was the final court of facts, ought to have considered the ground taken by him on merit and simply ought not to have rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation as plea of limitation is required to be considered leniently in the light of catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that petitioner’s plea for condoning the 3 delay should have been considered taking a lenient view of the matter in the light of the provisions contained in proviso to Rule 47 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. The appellate authority being the final authority dealing with the facts having not considered the appeal on merit, I am of the view that petitioner has been prejudiced by such action of the authority. Accordingly, appellate order dated 24.11.2008, Aannexure-6 as also revisional order dated 19.6.2009, Annexure-7 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the grounds for condoning limitation raised by the petitioner, as from the appellate order, it does not appear as to how grounds taken by the petitioner in support of the plea of limitation was not found justifiable by the appellate authority, as has been stated in paragraph 3 of the order. Having condoned the delay, the appellate authority should have considered the matter on merits in accordance with law. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)