Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Sri Ram Chandra

This appeal is time barred by 167 days, for which there is no satisfactory explanation, except the usual and hackneyed one to the effect that the period of limitation expired since the file travelled from one department to the other before a decision could be taken to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and order, which hardly inspires confidence rather the impression more than once is created that this is a lame excuse only to cover up the non serious attitude of the appellant- State or the Union of India, as the case may be, in filing the appeal.

Inspite of this huge and unexplained delay, we granted opportunity to the counsel representing the appellant-Union of India to address on the merit of the appeal in order to obviate miscarriage of justice on merit if there be any.

This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 945 of 2003, by which writ petition was allowed and the impugned order of punishment withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect was quashed and set aside. The said order had been passed after the learned Single Judge noticed that out of the period of 39 days of leave, which was treated as unauthorized absence, in fact, 15 days leave had been duly sanctioned by the authority and the remaining period which was treated as unauthorized absence, was not legally justified as the said period was an extended period of leave, which the respondent has sought as an extension of leave, supported by medical certificate.

The learned Single Judge noticed that leave without salary is permissible and in the instant matter the respondent-employee merely sought extension of his leave, which was duly supported by a medical certificate. This aspect of the matter was not taken into consideration by the authority due to which minor penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect was imposed, against which the petitioner-respondent filed the aforesaid writ petition.

Mr. Khan, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Union of India has submitted that the medical certificate was submitted only subsequently and, therefore, the imposition of penalty ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge.

However, this part of the averment is not found in the impugned order that the medical certificate was submitted by the petitioner subsequently.But, even if it were so, the same would not make any difference, once the medical certificate was found to be genuine.

The appeal thus has no substance, which is dismissed on merit as also on the ground of huge delay and laches. Consequently I.A. No. 2568 of 2009 also stands dismissed.