Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Sharma vs Indian Bank And Another on 14 November, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149300
CWP-1660-2024
2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
115
CWP
CWP-1660-2024
Date of decision: 14.11.2024
Amit Sharma
....Petitioner
Versus
Indian Bank and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. Gaurav Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate, for the respondents.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer made in the present
present petition is for quashing the order dated
27.04.2023 (Annexure P-1),
P 1), vide which the appeal filed by petitioner was
dismissed.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was removed from
service vide order dated 03.08.2022, appeal filed against which was dismissed
solely on the ground of delay. Despite he, having acted with due diligence in
prosecuting the appeal, the same cannot be attributed to any wilful negligence or
lack of bona fides on his part. The Appellate Authority, while passing the
impugned
mpugned order, failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice.
3. A worthwhile reference can be made to Postmaster General vs.
Ltd 1, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that,
Living Media India Ltd.
"Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay
(2012) 3 SCC 563
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149300
CWP-1660-2024
when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a
liberal concession has to be adopted to advance
advance substantial justice..."
4. In Mahadeo Vithoba Nikam vs. Gajanan Pandurang Kulkarni2,
the appeal was allowed, setting aside all the orders of the appellate and revisional
authority as also the High Court and the matter was remanded for fresh decision
on
n merits after hearing the parties and observed that even though the appellant was
not present before the Additional Tehsildar and filed the appeal against the order
after a significant delay, the Appellate Authority was to consider the same on
merits but it had been dismissed solely on the basis of delay.
5. The Appellate Authority in the case of Arvind Gupta vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Revenue State Taxes3, had rejected the appeal on the ground
of there being no provision under the GST Act for condoning the delay beyond
four months, which was set aside by the High Court and it was directed to decide
the same on merits.
6. The right to appeal is a cornerstone
cornerstone of substantive justice and must
not be cast aside lightly on the altar of procedural technicalities such as delay. It is
incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to decide appeals on their merits,
ensuring a fair and reasoned consideration. A judgment re
reflecting
flecting the deliberation
of a higher authority, rather than merely rubber
rubber-stamping
stamping the original decision,
would illuminate the path to justice.
7. Justice demands that substance triumph over form, particularly when
no tactical advantage is gained from a delay. Courts must adopt a pragmatic
approach, cutting through the red tape to address the heart of the matter. When
(1998) 9 SCC 716
WPA-2904-2023,
2023, dated 04.01.2024
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149300
CWP-1660-2024
procedural hurdles threaten to derail justice, the scales must tip in favor of equity,
upholding the principle that justice delayed should not become justice denied.
8. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
impugned order dated 27.04.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the
Appellate Authority, for rendering a decision on merits, in accordance with law,
la
within a period of four months,
months, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
9. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
14.11.2024 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
