Sh. Rakesh Bandooni vs Union Of India through

Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By filing this OA, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

"a) To set aside and quash the impugned order by which appeal of the applicant has been rejected on ground of delay.

b) To direct the respondent to decide the applicant's appeal dt.24/05/12 & 25/02/13 against the dismissal order dt.13/4/12 on merits by a detailed & reasoned speaking order.

c) Any other relief which Hon'ble Tribunal may deem proper and just keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case.

d) Award costs."

The grievance of the applicant in this case that he has submitted his appeal dated 24.5.2012 against the order of dismissal dated 13.4.2012. Although he himself stated that he has preferred the said appeal to the disciplinary authority instead of appellate authority but the same was returned to him on 23.7.2012 and thereafter he filed appeal to the appellate authority on 25.2.2013, however, the same was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground of delay. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the relief as mentioned above.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is admitted fact that the said appeal dated 24.5.2012 was received by the respondents but vide order dated 23.7.2012, they informed the applicant that disciplinary authority has already decided the matter and decision was conveyed to him vide order dated 13.4.2012 and his aforesaid representation was returned to him. He further submitted that as per Rule 22 of the EPFO, the appeal shall be presented to the authority to whom the appeal lies, a copy being forwarded by the appellant to the authority which made the order appealed against. It shall contain all material statements and arguments on which the appellant relies, shall not contain any disrespectful or improper language, and shall be complete in itself and Rule (3) of the said Rules further provides that the authority which made the order appealed against shall on receipt of a copy of the appeal forward the same with its comments thereon together with the relevant records to the appellate authority without any avoidable delay, and without waiting for any direction from the appellant authority.

Counsel for the respondents has not disputed the aforesaid Rule position on the subject.

In view of the above factual matrix of the case, this Court observes that when the aforesaid rules provides that on receipt of an appeal, the authority which made the order appealed against shall no receipt of a copy of the appeal forward the same with its comments thereon together with the relevant records to the appellate authority without any avoidable delay and without waiting for any direction from the appellate authority, the action of the disciplinary authority returning the said appeal dated 24.5.2012 to the appellant vide order dated 23.7.2012 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further there is no averment in the order passed by the appellate authority dated 28.3.2013 rejecting the subsequent appeal dated 25.2.2013 on the ground of delay about his earlier appeal, which was returned by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 23.7.2012 without any authority.

In view of the above position, this Court quash the order dated 28.3.2013 and direct the appellate authority to decide the appeal of the applicant on the merits of the case by passing a reasoned and speaking order and the decision so taken shall be communicated to the applicant within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order.

In the result, the present OA is partly allowed in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.