IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2087 of 2007(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.P. PRASAD, SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT GRADE I, RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF INDIA, RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM-9. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (SUMATHI SADANAM) RESPONDENT: --------------------- RUBBER BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD, KEEZHUKUNNU P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002. BY ADV. SHRI JOSEPH MARKOSE, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2087 of 2007(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARDED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DATED 22.06.2004. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.C1/3/2004-VIG DATED 2/8/2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9/8/2004 OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE RESPON DENT HEREIN. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1/3/2004-VID DATED 16TH DECEMBER 2004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/3/2005 OF THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20TH MARCH2006 OF THE PETITIONER PREFERRED TO THE CENTRAL GO VERNMENT THROUGH THE RESPONDENT HEREIN. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.C1//3/2004-VIG DATED 4TH APRIL 2006 OF THE RUBBER BOARD. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE TOUR REPORT DATED 30.06.2004 APPROVED BY THE RUBBER BOARD ON 01.09.2004. /TRUE COPY/ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P(C) No. 2087 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 18th February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P4 order passed by the respondent imposing minor punishment of barring one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The contention of the petitioner is that even though he has preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the concerned appellate authority, the same has been withheld by the respondent, as evident from Ext.P7, stating that the appeal is belated. 2. The cause of action arose on 21.06.2004 when the petitioner was proceeding in the office car from Ettumannoor to Kottayam along with another officer of the respondent-Board. The car was being driven by the official driver. There appeared a press report on the next day (Ext.P1) stating that the car was being driven in a zig-zag manner by the concerned driver in a highly intoxicated condition, without giving way to other vehicles and that the petitioner, who was also allegedly intoxicated did W.P(C) No. 2087 OF 2007 2 not take any effort to give necessary instruction to the driver to proceed properly. The said incident was seen by the passengers in a KSRTC bus which was proceeding behind the car. The incident, which attracted the attention of the mass media, tarnished the image of the respondent before the general public which led to issuance of Ext.P2 charge sheet asking for the explanation of the petitioner . In response to Ext.P2, the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 reply denying the charges levelled against him and also seeking appropriate action against the concerned daily, who published the wrong, false and tainted report against the petitioner and the respondent-Board absolutely without any basis for the same. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, the respondent passed Ext.P4 order, finding him guilty and imposed the minor punishment of barring one increment for one year without cumulative effect. 3. It is stated that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P5 review petition before the very same authority who passed Ext.P4 order of punishment. It is further stated that the W.P(C) No. 2087 OF 2007 3 petitioner was not aware of the appellate remedy as provided under the statute which was to be preferred before the Union Government within three months from the date of the impugned order. On coming across the actual position as above, the petitioner submitted Ext. P6 appeal through proper channel, also incorporating the specific reasons vide paragraph No.II seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However, the respondent did not forward the appeal to the concerned appellate authority and it was withheld as 'belated' as communicated to the petitioner vide Ext.P7 memorandum dated 04.04.2006, which action is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 4. Heard both the sides. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit in support of the action taken by them in issuing Exts.P4 and P7. But the specific contention of the petitioner is that the right of appeal is a vested right being conferred under the statute and it is for the 'appellate authority' to arrive at a finding as to whether the appeal is belated or whether the W.P(C) No. 2087 OF 2007 4 reasons stated for condoning the delay are adequate or not. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on Rules No.20 and 23 of the Rubber Board Service (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules 1961, as extracted in Ground D of the Writ Petition which reveal that the right to withhold the appeal arises only if no reason is stated for the delay (Rule 23) and in all other cases, it has necessarily to be considered by the appellate authority, including on the question as to the acceptability of the reason for the delay (Rule 20). This court finds considerable force in the said argument. By virtue of the above position of law, it is for the appellate authority to entertain the appeal preferred even after expiry of the prescribed period of three months, if it is satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal on time. 5. In the above circumstances, Ext. P7 order passed by the respondent withholding Ext.P6 appeal submitted by the petitioner is not at all correct or sustainable and it is hereby set aside. The respondent is directed to forward Ext.P6 appeal to the concerned W.P(C) No. 2087 OF 2007 5 appellate authority forthwith and at any rate, within a period of one month from today. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. No cost. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk