Uttarakhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Garg vs Union Of India And Others on 21 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
Writ Petition (S/B) No.360 OF 2020
21st December, 2022
Pradeep Kumar Garg ...... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and Others ...... Respondents
Presence: -
Shri Rajendra Dobhal, learned senior counsel assisted by
Shri G.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Virendra Kaparuwan, learned Standing Counsel for the
Union of India.
Shri Rakshit Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Shri M.C.
Pant, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
Heard learned counsels and with their consent,
we proceed to dispose of the present petition.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ-
petition to assail the orders dated 06.01.2018 and
10.05.2018 passed by the respondents.
3. By the first order dated 06.01.2018, the
petitioner was inflicted the punishment of removal from
service. By the subsequent order dated 10.05.2018, the
petitioner's departmental appeal was rejected as being
time barred and the application to seek condonation of
delay was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did
not make out sufficient ground to seek condonation of
delay.
4. The petitioner had preferred the appeal against
the order dated 06.01.2018 removing him from service on
09.03.2018. The petitioner stated that the appeal could
be preferred under Rule 32 of the Discipline Rules of
respondent no.2 within 30 days. However, the same was
belated and the delay was of 26 days. This delay was
occasioned due to the heart ailment from which the
petitioner suffered.
5. In his communication dated 09.03.2018 seeking
condonation of delay, the petitioner has disclosed that he
has been a heart patient for the last 7 years and efficiency
of his heart has decreased from 35% to 26% in the last
two years. After the passing of the order of termination
his condition has deteriorated further which occasioned
delay in filing the appeal.
6. The petitioner also placed before the
respondents his medical certificate dated 08.02.2018
issued by Brijesh Hospital certifying that the petitioner is
suffering from chronic heart disease and is presently
under treatment at Metro Hospital, Meerut. It is certified
that at present he is having acute problem of heart
failure. He needs at least four weeks' bed rest for
recovery i.e. upto 08.03.2018.
7. The respondents considered the application
seeking condonation of delay by the petitioner in the 178th
meeting of the Board of Directors and resolved that in the
application seeking condonation of delay, sufficient reason
could not be found. The petitioner was, accordingly,
communicated about the rejection of the appeal on the
2
ground of being time barred by limitation on 10.05.2018,
which reads as follows:-
"With reference to your application dated
09.03.2018 for condonation of delay in filing of
appeal to the appropriate authority within
stipulated time. It is informed that your appeal
has been rejected by the appellate authority
and found insufficient reason. A copy of the
Board resolution is enclosed."
8. The submission of the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner is that the rejection of the application
seeking condonation of only 26 days' delay in filing the
departmental appeal is completely laconic and lacks
application of mind. He further submits that the
departmental appeal was the only remedy available to the
petitioner and his valuable rights were at stake.
9. Condonation of delay of only 26 days would not
have caused any prejudice to any person.
10. We have heard learned counsels and, in our
view, there is merit in the submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner.
11. In disciplinary proceedings under departmental
rules, the rules should be construed pragmatically and not
so strictly as to deny a valuable right of the employee
to pursue his departmental appeal, which is the only
valuable right that he has to assail the order inflicting
punishment upon him. No prejudice would have been
caused to the respondents even if the delay of 26 days in
preferring the appeal was condoned. The respondents
have rejected the application by observing that the
petitioner did not disclose sufficient cause. If suffering
from chronic heart disease is not sufficient ground or
3
cause to explain the delay, we wonder, as to what
according to the respondent would be sufficient cause.
12. The petitioner had produced the medical
certificate in support of his application. The respondents
have not doubted or disputed the petitioner's claim with
regard to his medical ailment or the medical certificate
produced by him.
13. It is, therefore, clear to us that the
respondents' decision to reject the application seeking
condonation of delay was completely mindless and
irrational. We, accordingly, quash the order dated
10.05.2018 rejecting the petitioner's appeal on grounds of
being time barred.
14. We direct the respondents to decide the
departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner on its
own merits without being influenced by anything observed
by us today in the order.
15. The appeal would be disposed of within three
months under intimation to the petitioner.
16. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
_______________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 21st December, 2022
SS/PN
