AKHAND BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(2.) Vide order dtd. 13/4/2000, a penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner by the competent authority. Against the said order dtd. 13/4/2000, an appeal was preferred to the Managing Director of the Corporation who is the appellate authority for the same. When the said appeal of the petitioner was not decided for a long time, he sent a reminder on 8/10/2001 and further on 14/1/2002. However, when the request of the petitioner was not adhered to, he served a notice for demand of justice dtd. 16/1/2002 through his Advocate. Then ultimately, the appeal of the petitioner was decided by the appellate authority vide order dtd. 25/2/2002. The appeal of the appellant therein was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. In the impugned order, it has been observed as under:

(3.) Aggrieved against the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned dtd. 25/2/2002 is totally illegal as vide the same, the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground of limitation whereas the appeal was filed on 16/4/2000, that is, just 3 days after the order dtd. 13/4/2000 had been passed. The said fact of filing the appeal on 16/4/2000 is evident from the entry made on the memo of appeal and even from the inward/dispatch register as placed on record by the respondents alongwith the reply (Annexure-2).