JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 132 of 2020 :

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard through video conferencing. They have no complaint about any audio and/or video quality.

2. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 74 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

3. Heard the parties.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the statements made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in preferring this appeal within time.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 74 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

LPA No. 05 of 2020:

6. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7788 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 20.11.2010 and the appellate order dated 19.12.2012, by which the order of punishment of removal has been passed and affirmed, has been quashed and set aside by remitting the matter before the authority to take decision afresh in quantum of punishment.

7. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated, read as hereunder:

The writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable (Security Guard) in Central Industrial Security force, Unit Panki, Power House, Kanpur, U.P. on 19.12.2003. The writ petitioner visited his native place for 15 days with sanctioned leave from 07.01.2010 to 21.01.2010. According to the writ petitioner, at the native place, he fell seriously ill and as such, approached to the nearest primary health centre of the State Government wherein doctor had advised to take bed rest during the treatment.

The fact about the ailment could not have been communicated to the concerned authority since the writ petitioner was far away from the place of posting. The writ petitioner when became medically fit on the basis of the medical fitness certificate dated 01.04.2010, he reached to the place of duty and reported for joining on 05.04.2010 wherein he was verbally informed that he was no more in service and accordingly the writ petitioner has been removed from service vide order dated 20.11.2010.

The case of the writ petitioner is that the order of removal dated 2011.2010 has been passed without giving any reasonable opportunity to defend the case since the writ petitioner was at his native place and was not in a position to move due to his ailment. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal but the same had been dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2012.

Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7788 of 2012 assailing the order passed by the original authority as also by the appellate authority.

The writ petitioner has raised the plea of violation of principles of natural justice as also the ground of excessive punishment being commensurate with the charge. The learned Single Judge has interfered with the impugned orders and quashed and set it aside. The matter had been remitted before the disciplinary authority to take a decision afresh on the quantum of punishment, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal.

8. Mr. Paratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, the Director General of Central Industrial Security Force has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the writ petitioner being the member of the discipline force, as such, absence for 73 days cannot be taken in a lenient manner otherwise the discipline of the discipline force will ultimately be at question.

It has been contended that when the writ petitioner has not reported after the period of sanctioned leave, a departmental proceeding had been initiated and even though he was knowing about the initiation of the departmental proceeding, he has not bothered to communicate any letter or any med