ORDER

Delivered by Hon. Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) Shri L.M. Singh, ld. counsel for the applicant and Shri Dharmendra Tiwari vice Shri N.L. Maurya, ld. counsel for the respondents are present in court.

2. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.1996 vide which the penalty of reduction of pay to a lower stage for a period of five years with cumulative effect has been imposed upon him. His appeal against the aforesaid order has been rejected so as his revision petition be. To this effect, the applicant seeks the following relief(s): -

“( i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 29.1.1996 passed by respondent No. 4, order dated 13.2.2004 passed by respondent No. 3 and order dated 24.7.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3 of the O.A.). (ii) This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to restore the applicant to its original position and grant him all consequential benefits as if the applicant was never awarded this punishment.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”

3. Ld. counsel for the applicant takes us very briefly through the history of the case and submits that the order of penalty was imposed upon the applicant on 29.01.1996 and the same was effective from 01.03.1996 i.e. after a gap of more than one month.

He submits that the applicant had preferred an appeal against the order of penalty on 15.04.1996. However, the competent/ appellate authority passed an appellate order on 13.02.2004 i.e. after a lapse of 08 years rejecting his appeal in a very cryptic manner. Ld. counsel submits that no reason or facts have been narrated by the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal on the ground that it is time barred; why it’s so has not been explained. Hence, the order of the Appellate Authority is very casual in nature.

4. Ld. counsel for the respondents strongly contests the statement of ld. counsel for the applicant by submitting that any appeal was filed on 15.04.1996. While drawing attention to the counter affidavit, he submits that the appeal dated 15.04.1996 appears to be a fabricated document and he has made a clear averment in the counter affidavit that the competent authority amongst the respondents was not in receipt of any appeal of the applicant. He submits that the Appellate Authority has also mentioned in the order dated 13.02.2004 that the appeal being time barred cannot be considered.

5. We have heard the arguments of ld. counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

6. The basic fact with respect to the disciplinary proceedings and the order of penalty dated 29.01.1996 is not contested. What is contested is whether the applicant filed the appeal against the order of penalty within the stipulated time period as permissible under the rules or not. Ld. counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the document which is said to be the appeal filed by the applicant and this document clearly indicates that the said appeal was filed on 15.04.1996 ‘through proper channel’ and the office of respondents has received it on 15.04.1996. It is too late a stage to go into the question whether this document is fabricated or not nor are we the competent authority to determine the authenticity of this document or to doubt it. Prima facie, it appears that the appeal was filed and received in the said office but it went on unattended either in the office of the Appellate Authority or in the office of the authority who was supposed to forward the appeal to the Appellate Authority. Therefore, we do not have sound reason to doubt the authenticity of this document. We would not like to blame the respondents for pendency of app