S.N.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) IT would appear from the record that on the basis of certain charges, departmental proceeding was launched against the petitioner vide order dated 14th September, 2001. The enquiry culminated in passing of final orders by which recovery of Rs. 19,680 was directed to be effected from the petitioner in 19 instalments, each instalment consisting of Rs. 680. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order came to be dismissed as barred by time. The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the order of punishment and the appellate order cannot be sustained in law.
(2.) SRI V.K. Singh learned Counsel for the Opp. parties contended that the appeal was dismissed as barred by time and by this reckoning, the matter was not considered by the appellate authority on merits and it was rightly rejected as barred by time. Sri V.K. Singh fairly conceded that rules relating to departmental proceedings and appeal have been adopted by the U.P. Forest Corporation and the adopted rules are applicable. From the perusal of Annexure 1, it is clear that the charge -sheet was served to the petitioner on 24 -9 -1998. At the relevant time, Civil Services Classification and Appeal Rules, 1930 as applicable in U.P. were in operation and the procedure envisaged therein being of substance. Note to Rule 56 (1) is abstracted below for ready reference: Note.Such representation will not ordinarily be entertained unless it is preferred within six months from the date on which the Government servant concerned was informed of the order of punishment.
(3.) RULE 64(3) of the Rules refers to and deals with appeals and it being relevant too is quoted below: 64. An appeal may be withheld by an authority not lower than the authority whose order it is preferred if - (1)................. (2)................. (3) It is not preferred within six months after the date on which the appellate authority was informed of the order, appeal against no reasonable cause is shown for the delay, or. (4).............................. ;