ORDER :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No.7383 of 2023

This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considering the sufficient cause as has been assigned in the interlocutory application and having no objection on the part of the Respondent State, the delay of 66 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

Accordingly, I.A. No.7383 of 2023 stands disposed of.

LPA No.377 of 2022

This appeal is filed under Clause 10 of the letters patent, directed against the order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in WP(S) No. 4276 of 2009, whereby and where under, the writ petition has been dismissed without interfering with the order of punishment dated 13.10.1980 and the order dated 01.09.1981 on the ground that the writ petition has been filed after a delay of 28 years from the date of cause of action, i.e. the order of dismissal.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

2(i) The appellant was initially appointed to the post of Gangman on 31.07.1965 and the services of the appellant was confirmed as Gangman with effect from 01.01.1970. The appellant was promoted by the competent authority from Gangman to Keyman with effect from 29.09.1970 in the pay and grade of Rs. 238/- and the P.F. Account number of the appellant was allotted as C 47592 as governed by Pension Rules. The appellant was working to the post of Keyman with his fully sincerity without any complaint and to the best satisfaction of his Controlling Officer. On 10.01.1980, a telegraphic message was received by the appellant, whereby he came to know that the wife of the appellant is seriously ill at village, therefore, the appellant submitted his application to concerned officer for leave for 14 days and went to his home and, since, the condition of his wife was critical, therefore, he extended his leave for another 30 days and sent his application to this effect.

2(ii) In the month of March, the appellant came to Bano to join his duty, but, he was not allowed to join his duty and for joining of duty and sanction of the leave, the appellant gave Rs.500/- to Sri M.P. Gupta, P.W.-1 Grade III NXN, but, Mr. Gupta was not inclined to sanction his leave nor he returned Rs.500/- to the appellant and on 18.03.1980, Mr. Gupta implicated the appellant in a false case of assault to save his skin.

2(iii) The appellant was put under suspension with immediate effect from 01.05.1980 and a letter was issued on 30.07.1980 under the signature of Assistant Engineer, Banda Munda, wherein it was advised to appellant to keep himself present on 19.08.1980. Further, he was advised to participate in departmental enquiry. On the fixed date i.e. on 19.08.1980, the appellant participated in departmental enquiry, but, without considering the statement of the appellant and facts, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 26.09.1980 and the appointee was found guilty. However, regarding the incident, no First Information Report was lodged against the appellant nor any medical report was produced before the Enquiry Officer nor copy of that report was supplied to the appellant. Thereafter the appellant was served with dismissal notice dated 13.10.1980.

2.(iv) The disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority have not considered the contradiction of the prosecution witnesses and no P.Ws had supported in their deposition that they had seen the appellant to beat / hurt Mr. R.P. Gupta, Gr. III, NXN on 18.03.1980 nor any question was raised by the Enquiry Officer and none of the witnesses have supported the allegation as to assault / facture. Moreover, in this case, no second show cause was given to the appellant nor final order for termination was ever passed. The notice for dismissal from service as well as order of appellate authority are not speaking order nor any defence counsel was