Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Singh Makkar vs Punjab Mandi Board And Others on 25 May, 2009
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
C.W.P. No. 636 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 636 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION: MAY 25, 2009
Kulwant Singh Makkar
.....PETITIONER
Versus
Punjab Mandi Board and others
....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
---
Present: Mr.H.S. Saggu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondents.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The petitioner, who is working as Junior Engineer, Punjab Mandi Board, Sub Division, Mohali, has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 6.9.2004 (Annexure P1) passed by the Punishing Authority, whereby penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner, besides ordering for recovery of an amount of Rs.91,610.12; as well as the order dated 20.8.2007 (Annexure P2) passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on limitation and on technical ground that instead of appeal, the petitioner had filed the revision petition, which was not maintainable.
I have heard the counsel for the parties. During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer for quashing the order C.W.P. No. 636 of 2008 -2- (Annexure P2) with a direction to the Appellate Authority to re-hear the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and then pass a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to him.
In the instant case, the order of aforesaid punishment and recovery of an amount of Rs.91,610.12 was passed on 16.5.2004. The said order was communicated to the petitioner on 6.9.2004. The petitioner might have received the said order within a week thereafter. The petitioner filed revision-cum-appeal against the said order on 31.10.2004. The same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has challenged the said orders in this petition.
A perusal of the order dated 20.8.2007 (Annexure P2) passed by the Appellate Authority shows that the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in a casual manner on hyper-technical grounds. It has been observed that against the order of punishment and recovery, an appeal was maintainable, but since the petitioner had filed the revision, therefore, the same was not maintainable. A perusal of the grounds of appeal shows that the petitioner had filed revision-cum-appeal against the order of punishment and recovery. Merely because the petitioner had used the word `revision-cum-appeal', the Appellate Authority should not have taken the same as revision and dismissed the same as not maintainable. In my opinion, the Appellate Authority should have decided the said petition by treating the same as an appeal. Further, the Appellate Authority has illegally dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Rules. Rule 17 of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1988 provides that no appeal preferred under this part shall be entertained unless C.W.P. No. 636 of 2008 -3- such appeal is preferred within a period of 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 had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time.
As per the aforesaid Rule, the appeal could have been filed within forty-five days from the date on which a copy of the order appealed against is delivered to the appellant. Since in the instant case the copy of the order dated 6.9.2004 passed by the Punishing Authority might have been delivered to the petitioner in the 2nd/3rd week of September, 2004, therefore, the Appellate Authority has committed grave illegality while dismissing the revision/appeal on the ground of limitation without explaining how the limitation was calculated. The Appellate Authority is required to act reasonably and fairly being a quasi-judicial authority. In the instant case, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on the aforesaid grounds is neither proper nor justifiable.
In view of the aforesaid, order dated 20.8.2007 (Annexure P2) passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh on merits, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three months from today. In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, he will be at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum, in accordance with law.
May 25, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE