Dharavathu Sakru, v. Union Of India,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 42051 OF 2016 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Batula Rajakiran, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. 2.

Assailing the proceedings dated 31.08.2016 of the third respondent rejecting the appeal dated 26.7.2016 preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 29.5.2015 of the Senior Divisional Manager imposing punishment of dismissal from service and also directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,10,49,623/-, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3.

Petitioner contends that against the order dated 29.5.2015 he filed Writ Petition No. 16802 of 2015 in this Court on 10.6.2016, which was withdrawn on 1.7.2016 and thereafter the appeal dated 26.7.2016 was filed. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the period during which the representation was pending ought to have been excluded by the third respondent and the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not have been dismissed on the ground that it is filed beyond the stipulated period of three months by third respondent.

4.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents taking the stand that Regulation 41 of the Life Insurance Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1960 prescribes the period of three months for filing the appeal and that

MSR,J WP NO. 42051 OF 2016 the petitioner has not adduced sufficient cause for condoning the delay in submission of appeal.

5.

Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel for second respondent reiterated the said contentions. 6.

A reading of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, no doubt, does not indicate the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal specifically. But it is not in dispute that against the order of punishment imposed by the Senior Divisional Manager on 29.5.2015, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16802 of 2015, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.7.2016, and on 26.7.2016 the appeal was preferred before the third respondent. The third respondent is a party to the earlier Writ Petition and is fully aware of the said fact. Therefore, prima facie, it is arbitrary on the part of the third respondent to reject the appeal on the ground it is time barred without taking into account the above facts since the petitioner cannot be expected to simultaneously pursue the remedy of appeal as well as Writ Petition before this Court.

7.

Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.8.2016 passed by the third respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent. Petitioner is directed to file an application formally seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal citing the pendency of the Writ

MSR,J WP NO. 42051 OF 2016 Petition challenging the order of punishment within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and the third respondent is directed to consider that application as well as the appeal within eight weeks of submission of the said application and pass reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. He shall keep in mind the proviso to Regulation 41 which empowers the appellate authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal even after the expiry of the period of three months from the date of such order of punishment was imposed on the petitioner.

8.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

9.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J DATE: 23.12.2016 KA