Subhash Sood vs The Handloom and Handicrafts Corporation Ltd.

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The enquiry officer was appointed. He submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of ''Censure'' upon the petitioner vide office order dated 28th July, 1999. Petitioner has not preferred any appeal against this order till date. However, in the interest of justice, the petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority against the order dated 28th July, 1999. Thereafter, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same within a period of ten weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this judgment. The appellate authority shall also take into consideration that the petitioner was exonerated in the criminal case instituted against him. Since the petitioner had been pursuing the remedy in this Court, the question of limitation will not come in his way. In other words, the appeal to be preferred by the petitioner shall be decided on its own merits. The appellate authority shall pass a speaking order.

Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.