1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5892 of 2021 1 - Jagarnath Ram S/o Late Shri Kastoo Ram Aged About 56 Years R/o Satyam Vihar Colony, Near Old Gurukul School, Changorabhatha, Raipura District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Antyavyasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam, Grih Nirman Vyavsayik Parisar, Sector-27, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Secretary Chhattisgarh State Antyavyasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam, (T. R. I.) Bhawan, Second Floor, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - President Board Of Directors, Chhattisgarh State Antyavyasai Sahakari Vitta Evum Vikas Nigam, Grih Nirman Vyavsayik Parisar, Sector-27, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner : Ms. Noori Khan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, PL For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. -2- 10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash the impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and quash the punishment order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction and be pleased to quash the entire departmental inquiry initiated and also the enquiry report against the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The facts in brief are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working on the post of Field Officer under respondent No.2. The article of charge was issued against the petitioner on 22.05.2018, containing two charges as under : // आरोप पत्र // " श्री जगरनाथ रम, क्षेत्राधिकार, छ.ग. रज्य अंत्यवसाय साहकार विवत्त एव विवकासा विनागम, नाय रयपुर का विवरुद्ध विनाम्नालि"खि$त आर'पु अंधिर'विपुत विकाय जत ह( :- आरोप क्रमां क 01 - यह विका आपुका द्वार जिज"ध्यक्षे दर पुर काय-रत द' वहना चा"का/ का विनायधिमतकारण का1 काय-वह हत नास्त प्रस्तत का1 गई, जिजसाम5 सामलिचात तथ्य/ का उल्"$ नाह9 विकाय गय। आपुका उक्त का< त्य विनागम काम-चार साव विनायम 23 (अं) म5 कादचारण का1 श्रीण का अंतग-त दण्डनाय ह?। आरोप क्रमां क 02- आपुका द्वार शासाना का विनादAशा' का' नास्त पुर प्रस्तत नाह9 विकाय जना का कारण विनायधिमतकारण का1 काय-वह का फ"स्वरुपु उक्त द'ना' वहना चा"का/ का' विनायधिमतकारण का आदशा जर हुआ जिजसाका फ"स्वरूपु विनायधिमत वतनामना म5 वतना का भुगतना हुआ। आपुका उक्त का< त्य विनागम काम-चार साव विनायम 23 (अं) म5 कादचारण का1 श्रीण का अंतग-त दण्डनाय ह?।" The petitioner filed reply; the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and after full-fledged inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority inflicted penalty of stoppage of two 3 increments with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 19.02.2021. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before respondent No.4 on 24.03.2021 and same has been dismissed on the ground that the appeal was preferred after expiry of prescribed period of limitation i.e. 30 days and same was in contravention to the provisions of Rule 28 of the Employees Service Rules. 3. Ms. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that no application for condonation of delay was moved along with memo of appeal but at the same time, the Appellate Authority should have taken a lenient view as there was delay of only 4 days. She would pray that order dated 31.08.2021 may be quashed and a direction may be issued to respondent No.4 to decide appeal afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. They would submit that penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect was passed by respondent No.2 on 19.02.2021 and an appeal was preferred by the petitioner against said order after expiry of period of limitation, therefore, the Appellate Authority rightly dismissed the appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Rule 28 of the Employees Service Rules is reproduced herein below : " नियमां 28 :- दण्ड परो अपल 1. विनान्द अंथव आर्थिथHका दड का प्रकारण/ का विहसाब, दण्ड दिदए जना बबतK प्रत्यका आदशा का विवरूद्ध आदशा प्रसारण का1 वितलिथ सा -4- एका मह का अंतग-त अंनासाLचा 07 का अंनासार अंपु" दयर का1 ज साका ग एव विना-रिरत अंवधि का बद का'ई तर$ स्वकार नाह9 का1 जवग। यदिद सामयवधि म5 अंपु" प्रधिकार सा प्रत्यक्षे भु5ट साभुव ना ह' त' अंपु" पुजका< त डका सा भुज ज साका ग।" 7. As per Rule 28 of the Rules, an appeal can be preferred against order of penalty inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority within a period of one month. A memo of appeal can be sent to the Appellate Authority through a registered post. A perusal of the above-quoted provision would further make it clear that it is not strictly necessary to accompany a departmental appeal with a separate written application for condonation of delay. There was a delay of 4 days in filing departmental appeal. 8. It is a well-settled principle of law that technicalities should not prevent justice. Even in absence of separate application, the period of delay of 4 days caused in filing a departmental appeal appears to be justifiable. It is not a case where there was inordinate delay in filing appeal. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha