- (1.) IN the statement of leave, which has been filed today in the form of application, Shri R.K.Saxena, under his signature as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, (Legal Cell), regarding himself, has stated that he was on leave on 25.1.2012 and 27.1.2012. As 26.1.2012, was a public holiday, so he might be out of stationforthreedaysfrom25.1.2012to27.1.2012, but thereafter he was very well on duty on 28.1.2012 and thereafter till 1.2.2012 when he again proceeded for leave for five days and came back on 6.2.2012. Then, he remained on duty for next one month and took leave in the month of March, 2012 for three days from 5.3.2012 to 7.3.2012. Again leave was taken by him on 28.3.2012 to 30.3.2012. Thereafter this appeal was filed on 12.4.2012.
(2.) THE impugned order was passed on 30.12.2011. From the date of order, which was received in the office of the appellant as per application for condonation of delay on 10.1.2012, the concerning officer was continuously working in the office from that date i.e. 10.1.2012 to 25.1.2012 for 15 days. At that time, nothing was done for the purpose of preferring appeal against the impugned order. Thereafter, when the concerning officer was again on duty on 28.1.2012, 29.1.2012, 30.1.2012 and 31.1.2012, then again during that period no progress was made in the matter of filing appeal before this Commission. He was again on duty from 7.2.2012 to 4.3.2012 for around a month and during that period also no action was taken by him in furtherance of deciding as to whether appeal against the impugned order, is to be filed or not and no appeal was filedV Thereafter for a brief period of three days he Went on leave from 5.3.2012 to 7.3.2012 and was available in the office from 8.3.2012 till 28.3.2012 and during that period also no action was taken by him in this regard. From 31.3.2012 again he was on duty but failed to take any steps to decide for preferring appeal before this Commission.
(3.) FROM the aforesaid statement and the reasoning, it is clear that it has been incorrectly stated in the application for condonation of delay that competent officer i.e. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, (Legal Cell), had gone to Kanpur (U.P.) for personal work and continuously remained there and, so, file could not be attended. This statement in the application for condonation of delay, is contrary to the record, as has been filed by the concerning officer himself, in respect of leave taken by him. In the paragraph No. 5 of the application, it has further been incorrectly stated that when concerning officer came back in the office and took charge, then only he could know that the decision regarding preferring appeal against the impugned order, is still pending and then appeal was preferred. In fact for the most of the period, the concerning officer was continuously in office and was functioning there. So, there arises no question of coming back to the duty after a long time and then taking charge of the seat and then to take into consideration the matter. Thus, we find that only reason, which has been assigned in the application for condonation of delay is not supported by leave statement of the concerning officer. The appeal could not be preferred by the appellant for a period of two months and thirteen days excluding the period of limitation i.e. 30 days and delay has been occurred only because of the negligence on the part of the concerning officer of the appellant. On account of such negligence, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation and thereafterfor further more than two months. Such negligence cannot be treated as sufficient explanation for condonation of delay.;