IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11773 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.01.2010 Kaqrtar Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Pawan Kumar Goklaney, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is a retired driver of Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur Depot. He seeks quashment of the order dated 4.12.2007 (Annexure P-5) vide which the Director, Department of Transportation, C.W.P.No .11773 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Punjab-respondent No.2 has imposed punishment of 5% cut in pension to recover an amount of Rs.55,651/- from the petitioner. The petitioner is equally aggrieved at the order dated 27.1.2009 (Annexure P-6) whereby the Special Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Transport Department, has dismissed his statutory appeal being barred by limitation. Suffice it to observe that the afore-stated recovery order has been passed against the petitioner to recover 1/3rd of the compensation amount awarded to the claimants by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur vide an award dated 26.11.1993 in relation to an accident alleged to have been caused by the petitioner. It may be noticed that the petitioner stood retired from service w.e.f. 30.6.1998 and the punishment order has been passed after more than 9 years, i.e., on 14.12.2007. The petitioner's case is that a copy of the afore-stated order has been received by him personally in February, 2008 and thereafter he filed a statutory appeal under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, namely, the State Government, on the ground that it could be filed by the petitioner within 45 days and is barred by limitation. I have gone through the order passed by the Appellate Authority. In my considered view, the Appellate Authority ought to have decide the petitioner's appeal on merits instead of rejecting the same on a hyper-technical ground. The Appellate Authority has nowhere observed C.W.P.No .11773 of 2009 (O&M) 3 that the punishment order was conveyed to the petitioner well in time or that the explanation given by him for condonation of delay is unsatisfactory. In any case, once the Appellate Authority had undertaken the entire exercise to decide the appeal on merits including affording of an opportunity of personal hearing on 27.1.2007, it ought to have decide the appeal on merits. The Judicial and/or quasi-Judicial Tribunals should endeavour to decide a lis on merits unless it arrives at definite conclusion like gross negligence behind delay. For the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 27.1.2009, issued on 9.2.2009 (Annexure P-6) is set-aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits and in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. 27-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE