IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8099 of 2014 Debesh Kumar Biswal …. Petitioner Ms. Manas Pati, Advocate along with Mr. Lalatendu Samal, Advocate -versus-

Development Commissioner- …. Opposite parties Cum- Addl. Chief Secretary, Odisha and others Mr. Santosh Kumar Brahma, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER

04. 10.02.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Mr. Manas Pati, learned counsel along with Mr. Lalatendu Samal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that order dated 27.11.2013 passed by Commissioner-cum-Director of Directorate of Local Fund Audit, Odisha issued charge/surcharge on the Petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,30,150.00/- (Rupees One lakh thirty thousand one hundred and fifty only) under Section 9(3) of the Odisha Local Fund Audit Act, 1948 (“O.L.F.A. Act”, for short). At paragraph-4 of the said order, it has been stated thus:

“If you are aggrieved with this order, you may prefer an appeal under Section 11 of the OLFA Act, 1948 (Odisha Act V of 1948) before the Development Commissioner, Odisha within 14 days from the date of communication of order under intimation to the undersigned and the District Collector.”

Referring to paragraph-3.7 of the writ petition, it is affirmed by the Petitioner that on 09.12.2013, he has received the said order dated

27.11.2013.

3. Drawing attention of this Court to the appeal petition addressing to the Development Commissioner vide Annexure-7, it is submitted that the said appeal petition was sent to the Appellate Authority on 21.12.2013 which fact has been asserted at paragraph-3.13 of the writ petition. It is vehemently submitted by Mr. Lalatendu Samal, learned counsel for the Petitioner that due to postal delay, the said appeal petition could reach the Office of the appellate authority on 28.12.2013, i.e., around 5 days later than 14 days of service of order dated 27.11.2013.

3.1. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that mere delay of 5 days due to postal communication, the Appellate Authority- Development Commissioner-cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Odisha should not have rejected the appeal on hyper-technical grounds. He submitted that after dispatching the appeal petition on 21.12.2013 by post, the documents have left the custody of the Petitioner and he has no control over the same. Therefore, for the delay caused in service of said documents in the Office of Appellate Authority he has no role, as such the appeal petition should have been considered by the appellate authority on merits.

4. Mr. Santosh Kumar Brahma, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the facts are not disputed. However, he urged not to entertain this writ petition. As the appeal petition was not submitted to the Appellate Authority within the time stipulated as envisaged in Section 11 of the Odisha Local Fund Audit (O.L.F.A. Act), the delay could not be condoned by the appellate authority as there is no provision for condonation of delay. Therefore, he essentially submitted that in absence of any provision authorising the appellate authority to ignore the delay in filing of appeal, the appeal being rejected vide Order dated 22.01.2014, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Perusal on record indicates that it has been observed in the order dated 22.01.2014 by the Appellate Authority as follows:-

“Being aggrieved with the Surcharge Order No.17938 dt.27.11.13 issued by the Examiner of Local Accounts which was served on the aforesaid appellant on dt.09.12.13, the appellant filed an appeal before the Development Commissioner-cum- Additional Chief Secretary and the same was received on dt.28.12.13, i.e. beyond the stipulated period of fourteen days prescribed u/s-11(1) of Local Fund Audit Act, 1948.

As per the clarification issued by the Finance Department after obtaining legal opinion from the Law Department vide G.O. No.1010/XIV-audit-31/69-LFA dtd.09.03.1972, the period of fourteen days