Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Akhand Bahadur Singh vs State And Ors on 19 May, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5043/2003
Akhand Bahadur Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5044/2003
Akhand Bahadur Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State Farms Corporation And Ors
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Sinha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaideep Singh
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
19/05/2022
Brief facts of the case are as under:
The petitioner has since retired on 28.02.2019. He was
working on the post of Assistant Store Keeper with the respondent
State Farms Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
"the Corporation"). During the tenure of his service, the petitioner
was served with the memorandum dated 22.10.1997 proposing to
hold an inquiry against him for the two charges framed against
him. In pursuance to the memorandum, an inquiry was conducted
by the Inquiry Officer and vide the Inquiry Report dated
12.02.2000, charge No.1 was found to be partially proved and
(2 of 5) [CW-5043/2003]
charge No.2 was found to be proved beyond doubt by the Inquiry
Officer. The petitioner was then granted an opportunity to make a
representation, if any, against the Inquiry Report within a period
of 15 days. In response to which, the representation was filed by
him on 21.03.2000.
Vide order dated 13.04.2000, a penalty of withholding of one
annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the
petitioner by the competent authority. Against the said order
dated 13.04.2000, an appeal was preferred to the Managing
Director of the Corporation who is the appellate authority for the
same. When the said appeal of the petitioner was not decided for
a long time, he sent a reminder on 08.10.2001 and further on
14.01.2002. However, when the request of the petitioner was not
adhered to, he served a notice for demand of justice dated
16.01.2002 through his Advocate. Then ultimately, the appeal of
the petitioner was decided by the appellate authority vide order
dated 25.02.2002. The appeal of the appellant therein was
dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. In the impugned
order, it has been observed as under:
"AND WHEREAS aggrieved with the penalties
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, Shri Akhand
Bahadur Singh, ASK(T) preferred an appeals to
Appellate Authority. The appeals submitted by the
Appellant are time-barred and he has not given
any reasons for late submission of appeals. The
Appellate Authority has therefore not considered
the appeals submitted by the appellant after
expiry of the prescribed period mentioned in SFCI
(Staff) Regulations."
(3 of 5) [CW-5043/2003]
Aggrieved against the said order, the present writ petition
has been preferred. It has been submitted by the counsel for the
petitioner that the order impugned dated 25.02.2002 is totally
illegal as vide the same, the appeal of the petitioner has been
rejected solely on the ground of limitation whereas the appeal was
filed on 16.04.2000, that is, just 3 days after the order dated
13.04.2000 had been passed. The said fact of filing the appeal on
16.04.2000 is evident from the entry made on the memo of
appeal and even from the inward/dispatch register as placed on
record by the respondents alongwith the reply (Annexure-2).
Counsel submits that firstly, his appeal was in limitation and
secondly, even if it was barred by limitation, the same could not
have been rejected only on that sole technical ground.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments
passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in V.K. Javali vs. State of Mysore
and Ors. reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 248; Vasudeo
Vishwanath Saraf vs. New Education Institute and Ors.
reported in AIR 1986 SC 2105 and the judgment passed by this
Court in Shaitan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported
in 2003 (4) WLC 317.
Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that the
appeal filed by the appellant though dated 14.04.2000 but was
filed on 08.10.2001. Counsel further submitted that the inward
entry made on memo of appeal reflects two dates, one of
16.04.2000 and the other of 08.10.2001. He submits that the
entry of 16.04.2000 has been inserted later on as the appeal was
filed only on 08.10.2001.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
(4 of 5) [CW-5043/2003]
The Staff Regulations of the Respondent Department
governing the present parties provides as under:
"PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR APPEALS:
162. No appeal preferred under these
regulations shall be entertained unless such appeal
is made within forty five days from the date on
which a copy of the order appealed against is
delivered to the appellant:
Provided that the appellate authority
may entertain the apeal after the expiry of the
said period if it is satisfied that the appellant has
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in
time."
A bare perusal of the memo of appeal (Annexure-6) makes it
clear that the memo of appeal was received in the office of
respondent Department on 16.04.2000. The second entry
pertaining to 08.10.2001 is the entry of a reminder being
received. Even otherwise, the entry of 16.04.2000 as made, even
seen by a naked eye, cannot be said to be inserted at a later
period of time. It is clear that the entry was made just after the
completion of the document.
Moresoever, the inward/dispatch register specifically
mentions the receipt of the appeal of the petitioner at serial
No.900. The same serial number, that is, 900 finds place on
Annexure-6 (Memo of appeal). Thus, it is clear that the memo of
appeal was received in the office of the respondent Department on
16.04.2000, the inward/dispatch entry for the same was made at
serial No.900 on the same date and corresponding entry for the
same was also made on the memo of appeal.
(5 of 5) [CW-5043/2003]
Therefore, the findings as reached by the appellate authority
that the appeal is time barred is totally wrong and therefore
deserves to be set aside. Hence, the appellate order deserves to
be set aside only on this sole ground and therefore, this Court is
not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the order
dated 25.02.2002 (Annexure-10) is quashed and set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for decision
afresh. It is needless to observe that the same would be decided
by the appellate authority after considering the entire record and
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner strictly
in accordance with law.
The appellate authority shall complete the said exercise
within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the
certified copy of the present order.
With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
Ashutosh-5-6
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
