Allowed

Ramendra Pratap Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020WRIA/992/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged an order dismissing an appeal due to non-compliance with limitation under 1975 Regulations. The court quashed the dismissal, allowing the petitioner to institute a fresh appeal with condonation of delay under Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1963.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to institute the appeal afresh with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963.

Ramendra Pratap Pal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 992 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Ramendra Pratap Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sujeet Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhishek Mishra,Satyam Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satyam Singh for the second respondent, Sri Abhishek Mishra for the third respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent.

¶6

This petition impugns an order dated 01 November 2019 passed by the second respondent dismissing a statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The appeal was preferred in terms of the provisions made in Regulations 87 and 88 of the 1975 Regulations.

¶7

The impugned order records firstly that the appeal was never got received in the office of the second respondent on 17 April 2019 as alleged. It then proceeds to record that the appeal was received more than 60 days after the date of imposition of penalty and consequently was liable to be rejected on that score. The said findings have come to be recorded in light of the provisions made in Regulation 88(e) which mandates the appeal to be preferred and instituted within 30 days from the date of imposition of penalty. It is in that backdrop that Sri Rai learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is self contradictory since while on the one hand it asserts that the appeal was never received, on the other it records that it was received after 60 days. However the record reveals that although the appeal is stated to have been transmitted under registered cover on 17 April 2019, no proof of dispatch has

¶8

been appended alongwith the writ petition. The appeal memo also does not bear the endorsement of receipt of any officer or employee of the second respondent. In the absence of a valid institution and receipt of that appeal in the office of the second respondent, the Court is left with no option but to conclude that it was not preferred as asserted.

¶9

Notwithstanding the above, the Court notes that the provisions of Regulation 88 do not lay down any special procedure which may mandate exclusion of the provisions made in Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act 1963. The Court bears in mind that the provision of appeal is a salutary remedy which is made available to an employee aggrieved by an order of punishment that may be imposed upon him. It is not disputed before this Court that against the order of punishment, an appeal was in fact preferred before the Administrator on 05 March 2019. The Administrator was not the competent authority and therefore it is manifest that the appeal had been instituted before an incompetent authority. It is in that context that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 assume relevance. Additionally and in the absence of a special period of limitation prescribed under Regulation 88, it cannot be said that provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 stand excluded by implication. In view of the aforesaid, the ends of justice would merit the impugned order being set aside and the petitioner being permitted to institute the appeal afresh before the second respondent.

¶10

Accordingly and with the consent of parties, this writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 01 November 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. It shall be open to the petitioner to institute an appeal afresh alongwith an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay referable to Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963. It shall also be open to the

¶11

petitioner to invoke the provisions enshrined in Section 14 of the 1963 Act. Upon such appeal being preferred, the second respondent shall duly consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.2.2020 faraz

Ramendra Pratap Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramendra Pratap Pal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avashesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mateshwari Prasad Dubey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Arjun Tiwari and Another Vs the Chairman and Managing Director Bank of India and 3 Others

Kumari Prachi Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mst. Ram Beti Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others