Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN-466 of 1980, decided on 28th February, 1982.

---S.25-A--Appellant dismissed on charge of misconduct--Reinstated in service on ground of defective enquiry proceedings--Order disallowing back benefits challenged before Tribunal through belated appeal--No ground for condonation of delay--Appeal dismissed as time-barred.

Malik Mohammad Asghar for Appellant.

Lt.-Col. (Rtd.) Ismatullah for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 9th February, 1982.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant who was a Sales Supervisor, was charge-sheeted for misappropriation of fertilizer. After making enquiry he was dismissed from service on 3-1-1979. Attacking the enquiry as unfair and contending that he was not afforded proper opportunity to defend himself and was not given final show-cause notice he brought the grievance petition, which was accepted and the appellant directed to be reinstated without back benefits. The appellant challenges the order to the extent it refused to him back benefits.

2. The appeal is time-barred. Application for condonation of delay has been given. The date of decision of the learned lower court is 31-3-1980. The present appeal was presented on 2-6-1980. The copy of the lower court's decision shows that it was obtained on 12-4-1980. It is not mentioned as to when the application for copy was made. Copies are prepared alongwith the original order, so no question arises that the copy was delivered on the date of delivery. Neither register of applications for copy was summoned, nor any other evidence produced to show that the application was given much earlier than 12-4-1980, the date on which the copy was collected. Even if it be said that the application for copy was given much earlier, the appeal is time-barred, because on 12-4-1980 copy was collected but appeal was presented on 2-6-1980 whereas it should have been presented upto 12-5-1980. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, it, is mentioned that the appellant fell ill and recovered on 3-5-1980 when he reported for duty. Medical certificate is also attached, according to which, rest was advised upto 2-5-1980. Since the appellant had, according to the medical certificate, fully recovered on 2-5-1980, he should have presented the appeal on the said date or at the -most on 3-5-1980. So, the delay from 2-5-1980 to 1-6-1980 does not stand explained. No reason has been given in the application for condonation of delay and in the affidavit why the appeal was not presented earlier than 2-6-1980. So, no ground for condonation of delay has been made out. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed as time-barred.

M. I.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.