Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Fareed vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 January, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 18 of 2021
Appellant :- Mohd. Fareed
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Anwar Hussain,Mohammad Alam
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Mishra
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard on the application for condonation of delay of 280 days in filing the appeal to challenge the judgment passed by learned Single Judge on 12.02.2020.
An application to obtain certified copy of the order was moved on 18.03.2020 i.e. after the expiry of period of limitation for filing the appeal. The excuse taken for delay is out of the COVID-19. The appellant could not visit his advocate during the lock down period but what we find that before the imposition of lock down on 23.03.2020, the limitation to prefer appeal had expired. The certified copy of the judgment was applied and received by petitioner-appellant on 18.03.2020 itself. In the sequence aforesaid, the imposition of lock down subsequent cannot be taken as ground for condonation of delay. It is more so when petitioner-appellant had visited counsel on 18.03.2020 itself, the delay in making an application to obtain certified copy has not been explained. The appeal was then filed on 18.12.2020 though much prior to it, the transportation was available and the Allahabad High Court was physically working. Thus, we do not find any justification to condone the delay otherwise also we do not find any merit in the appeal.
The appellant is rather guilty of suppressing material facts from the Court. It is for reason that prior to the judgment under challenge, a writ petition was earlier preferred by petitioner-appellant though at the stage of issuance of show-cause notice before imposition of punishment. A judgment thereupon was given followed by an appeal. The appellate judgment was enclosed along with the writ petition to show that the petitioner prayed for grant of liberty to tender unconditional apology but then even after tendering the apology, it was not accepted by the respondents while passing the order for punishment.
The judgment of the Division Bench on earlier writ petition shows reason to deny interference in the judgment of learned Single Judge. In absence of the copy of judgment of learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition, it cannot be accepted that the issue regarding violation of principle of natural justice or the regulation for disciplinary action under U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 was not raised. Why the order of learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition was not enclosed could not be explained by learned counsel for the appellant.
It is otherwise a fact that the serious allegation for acceptance of bribe of Rs.700/- was levied against the appellant along with two others and in the enquiry, charge was found true. The appellant had prayed a liberty to tender unconditional apology before the Division Bench in the earlier appeal and was granted. The unconditional apology is tendered by a person who accepts the guilt and in this case it was unconditional. That being the position, the allegation against appellant for acceptance of bribe gets proved and he tendering unconditional apology in regard to aforesaid conduct, it was not necessary for the administration to accept the apology but to take a proper decision in the matter.
Learned counsel for the appellant was invited to refer to the application tendering apology. Index to the writ petition shows it but the document has not been enclosed along with writ petition despite referred in the index. Again petitioner-appellant deliberately did not file the relevant document. The conduct of the appellant is writ large and otherwise apology is tendered only when acceptance of the guilt remains, then, the issue regarding violation of principle of natural justice or the Regulation of 1999 would no more survive. One who defends the charges would not tender apology unconditionally.
It is not a case that a conditional apology was tendered that is to say that though he is not accepting the charges but tender apology rather at this stage learned counsel for the appellant admitted that unconditional apology was tendered and it can be only when the guilt is accepted.
Taking over all facts into consideration, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the judgment of learned Single Judge. The appeal, thus, fails and is dismissed.
Looking to the conduct of the petitioner-appellant, we impose cost of Rs.1,000/- which would be deposited with the State Legal Service Authority, Allahabad High Court, Allahabad within a period of one month.
Order Date :- 11.1.2021/ V.S.Singh
