Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1669 (RAJ)

Akhand Bahadur Singh v. State

2022-05-19

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - 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 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. 2. 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. Aggrieved against the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred. 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. 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). 4. 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. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in V.K. Javali v. State of Mysore and Ors. reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 248; Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf v. New Education Institute and Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 2105 and the judgment passed by this Court in Shaitan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2003 (4) WLC 317 . 6. 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. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The Staff Regulations of the Respondent Department governing the present parties provides as under: "PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR APPEALS: 162. He submits that the entry of 16.04.2000 has been inserted later on as the appeal was filed only on 08.10.2001. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. 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 appeal after the expiry of the said period if it is satisfied that the appellant has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time." 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 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. 12. 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. 13. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 14. All pending applications also stand disposed of.