JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 1046 of 2021

This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 85 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1046 of 2021 is allowed and delay of 85 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

L.P.A. No. 93 of 2020

5. The instant intra-court appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred against the order/judgment dated 14.10.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2475 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed refusing interference with the order of punishment.

6. The brief facts of the lis which is required to be enumerated read as hereunder:

The writ petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1988 as Unskilled Khalasi and subsequently promoted to the post of Correspondence Clerk in the year 1993. While discharging his duties, the petitioner was served with a letter as contained in Memo No. 3695 dated 02.09.2009 informing the petitioner that the Board intended to initiate a departmental proceeding on the charges as contained in charge-sheet and a show cause was called for from him. The writ petitioner replied to the show cause notice vide letter dated 17.09.2009 stating that while he was discharging the duty in Special Cell in addition to work of other Sections, no Assistant was posted in the said Cell, as such it was difficult for him to discharge his duties taking into consideration the fact he was already over-loaded with other work and further the delay in disposal of the file in question was not intentional and delay occurred only because of excessive workload on him. In the reply, it was further stated that in his entire service career, there was no complaint against him and it is the first instance such allegation has been leveled against him, as such prayer for exoneration of the charge was made. But the reply of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory as such enquiry was conducted by the Conducting officer who submitted his report vide letter dated 23.03.2010 stating that the petitioner unnecessarily retained the file of the delinquent-employee for a period of six months and submitted wrong proposal. The Enquiry Officer taking into consideration the stand taken by the petitioner as also other material fact held the petitioner guilty of the charges. On the basis of enquiry report, second show cause was issued upon the petitioner vide memo no. 1287 dated 05.08.2010, to which he replied, whereupon the disciplinary authority finally passed the impugned order of punishment dated 13.10.2010 whereby the petitioner was awarded the punishment of censure for the year 2005-08 and further withholding of three increments with cumulative effect, against which the petitioner preferred appeal, which was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 08.06.2011.

Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner-appellant invoked the power of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by preferring writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 2475 of 2017 by challenging the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority on the ground that withholding of three increments with cumulative effect since is a major punishment could not have been awarded in absence of any serious breach of duty committed by the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioner had retained the concerned file for a period of about six months and given a wrong proposal is human error which occurred due to excess workload and in absence of helping hands as no Assistant was posted in the Allegation Cell, as such the files were kept pending for some time. It was further contended that while passing the impugned order of punishment the respondents failed to take into consideration the Circula