RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dtd. 25/7/2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3 rejecting the appeal (Annexure P-6) submitted by the petitioner on 16/6/2025 against order of his dismissal from service on 1/2/2022 (Annexure P-2) and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to decide the appeal dtd. 16/6/2025 (Annexure P-2) preferred by the petitioner against an order dtd. 1/2/2022 (Annexure P-2).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was convicted under Ss. 306/506 of IPC vide judgment dtd. 8/11/2021 as discernible from Annexure P-1. A criminal appeal against the conviction is pending. Consequently, the Punishing Authority dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dtd. 1/2/2022 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner filed a statutory appeal against the order of dismissal on 16/6/2025 (Annexure P-6). The appeal was delayed by 1215 days. In the appeal, the petitioner has furnished a satisfactory explanation by providing complete details of the circumstances that prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period and has accordingly sought condonation of the delay. However, respondent No. 3, i.e., the Appellate Authority, rejected the appeal vide order dtd. 25/7/2025 (Annexure P-8) solely on the ground of delay, without adverting to or discussing the reasons furnished for such delay. It is a trite law that where sufficient cause is shown, delay ought to be condoned and the matter is decided on merits rather than dismissed on technical grounds. He further relies upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CR No.2886 of 2014 titled as 'Babu Ram Vs. Rajesh' decided on 4/5/2017 and the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.6938 of 1993 titled as 'M/s Sthaneshwar Handmade Papers PCIS Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana' decided on 27/1/1994.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel refers to the impugned order and submits that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed as it was hopelessly time-barred and that the Appellate Authority has applied the relevant rules prescribing the period of limitation. However, he could not controvert the fact that in the impugned order of dismissal, there is no mention of any ground of condonation of delay and without adjudicating on the sufficiency of the grounds, the appeal has been dismissed only on the basis of period of limitation by passing a non-speaking order.