AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—Heard Mr. Md. Ibrahim Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and and Ms. S. Seethalakshmi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition is filed to set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner reducing his pay by one stage from Rs. 4390/- to 4,306/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 3,200-85-4900 for two years with effect from 1.5.2008, which will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.
The petitioner was proceeded with in respect of two charges. The first charge was that while the petitioner was performing his official duty, he has collected something and concealed it under the soil and the second charge was that he was having unaccounted money of Rs. 30/- and the same was recovered from him. The Enquiry Officer has held that the first charge was not proved and the second charge stands proved. Based on the enquiry report, the impugned punishment was imposed on the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as the first charge was not proved, the second charge cannot be said to be proved, as both charges were interconnected. The original authority passed the order of punishment, against which an appeal was filed with a delay of seven months. According to the petitioner, out of the said seven months, he was on leave for several months and he has requested to grant forty days time for filing appeal after reporting duty by stating that he has to avail legal assistance for filing appeal and thereafter, he has preferred the appeal. The said appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground of delay.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring appeal. However, the same was not considered by the appellate authority and dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay only. The revisional authority has also failed to consider the revision on the ground that the appellate authority has rejected the appeal on the ground of delay.
Since the petitioner raised legal point in the appeal stating that both charges are interconnected and without proving the first charge, it is not possible to give a finding that the second charge was proved, we are of the view that the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority only on the ground of delay cannot be sustained and the said orders are set aside. The third respondent/appellate authority is directed to hear the appeal without reference to the belated filing of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 10.10.2008 and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.