Appeal Rejected on Delay Grounds Must Still Be Placed Before Appellate Authority.

The applicant, Pankaj Kumar, a Master Craft Man under the respondents, was issued a show cause notice on January 31, 2017, alleging he obtained confidential documents and photographed an Army Vehicle in a restricted workshop, violating security rules.

He submitted a reply on February 4, 2017.

Subsequently, a charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was issued on February 24, 2017.

An inquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed on April 26, 2017.

The applicant objected to the inquiry officer's alleged bias and requested a list of witnesses, which was denied.

On January 9, 2018, respondent-3 rejected the applicant's request and directed him to participate in the inquiry.

The inquiry officer submitted his report on August 23, 2018, finding the charges proved, and the disciplinary authority forwarded it to the applicant for representation.

On October 25, 2018, respondent-3 passed a punishment order of withholding increment for three years with cumulative effect, without considering the applicant's reply.

The applicant contended that respondent-3 was not the competent authority for this punishment, claiming he was a Group 'B' employee and the Master General of Ordnance was the competent authority.

The respondents maintained that the applicant was a Group 'C' employee at the time of the misconduct, making respondent-3 the competent authority.

The applicant filed an appeal on April 19, 2019, which respondent-3 rejected as time-barred on May 14, 2019, citing it was filed beyond the prescribed 45 days.

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant's appeal dated April 19, 2019, as time-barred by respondent-3 through the order dated May 14, 2019, was legally permissible.

2. Whether the appeals preferred by the applicant should be placed before the competent Appellate Authority for decision on merits.

Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, regarding disciplinary proceedings and charge sheets.

The CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 also govern the prescribed period for filing appeals, which is 45 days.

The principle of providing an opportunity for representation against an inquiry report before passing a punishment order.

The court noted that the applicant's appeal dated April 19, 2019, was filed about five months after the October 25, 2018, penalty order, beyond the 45-day period stipulated in the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.

However, instead of being placed before the Appellate Authority for consideration, the appeal was simply returned with the approval of the Commandant & MD with remarks that it was time-barred.

The court determined that the appeal needed to be considered on its merits by the competent Appellate Authority, even if there was a delay in filing.

Therefore, the respondent's action of not forwarding the appeal to the Appellate Authority and unilaterally returning it was deemed inappropriate, and the court opted to condone the delay for a decision on merits.

The court explicitly stated that it was not delving into the merits of the Disciplinary Authority's order at this stage.

It set aside the order dated May 14, 2019, issued with the approval of the Commandant & MD, which had returned the applicant's appeal as time-barred.

The matter was remanded back to the competent Appellate Authority.

The Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the appeal of the applicant on merits within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order.