- (1.) The matter has been heard with the consent of learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. There is no complaint about any audio and visual quality. I.A.No.11903 of 2019 The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 102 days taking the ground of department to take a decision to prefer appeal, for which, an opinion has been taken in the matter, some conferences took place with the concerned law officer and instructions were given to procure all the related documents and pleadings so as to prepare a proper memo of appeal. Thereafter, the said procedure took time after settlement of decision by the discussion with the law officer, the file has been handed over to the filing counsel for the purpose of preparing the final draft memo. Thereafter, the appeal has been filed which caused the delay of 102 days. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State that the instant interlocutory application may be allowed since the appellant has got good case on merit and on technicality, the instant appeal would be dismissed, the same will prejudice the appellant. On the other hand, Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner has opposed the delay condonation application by putting reliance upon the certain judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Cicily Kallarackal Vrs. Vehicle Factory , 2012 8 SCC 524, Post Master General and Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. , 2012 3 SCC 563, Union of India and Ors. Vrs. Nripen Sarma , 2013 4 SCC 57, Vijay Shankar Pandey Vrs. Union of India and Anr. , 2014 10 SCC 589. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the rival submissions, first deem it fit and proper to deal with the judgments, upon which, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner. So far as the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Cicily Kallarackal Vrs. Vehicle Factory(supra) which pertains to filing of appeal against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under Section 27A(1)(c) and in that pretext, it has been laid down that in filing the appeal, the limitation period provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is required to be followed but the fact of this case pertains to intra-court appeal to be governed, wherein, the period of limitation is to be considered under the Limitation Act, 1963 and as such, on fact, the judgment rendered in the aforesaid case is distinct from the fact of the present case. So far as the judgment rendered in the case of Post Master General and Ors. Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr.(supra) , we, on consideration of the factual aspect involved therein has found therefrom that therein the delay in filing the appeal was of 427 days. It is evident from the factual aspect that the Hon'ble Apex Court on the basis of contradiction in the fact has not found to condone the delay of 427 days but the said fact is not available in the facts of the present case as would appear from the ground taken for condonation of delay in the interlocutory application, hence, this judgment is not applicable in the facts of this case. So far as the case of Union of India and Ors. Vrs. Nripen Sarma(supra) , there was delay of 239 days in filing the appeal. Herein, the delay of 102 days. It further requires to refer herein the other proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana Vrs. Chandra Mani and Ors. , 1996 3 SCC 132, wherein, it has been laid down to the effect that while condoning the delay of 109 days in filing the LPA before the High Court, this Court has observed that certain amount of latitude within the reasonable limits is permissible having regard impersonal bureaucratic set up involving red tapism. In State of U.P. and Ors. Vrs. Harish Chandra and Ors. , 1996 9 SCC 309, by giving similar reasons, as mentioned in Chandra Mani's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court, condoned the delay of 480 days in filing the SLP. In National Insurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Giga Ram and Ors. , 2002 10 SCC 176, the Hon'ble Apex Court after finding that the High Court was not justified in taking too technical view of the facts and refusing to condone the delay, accepted the case of the appellant-Insurance Company by protecting the interest of the claimant and condoned the delay. In State of Nagaland Vrs. Lipok Ao and Ors. , 2005 3 SCC 752, the Hon'ble Apex Court while reiterating the principle that latitude be given to the government litigation, allowed the appeal filed by the State of Nagaland. This Court after considering the aforesaid position of law, is of the view that it would not be proper to throw out the instant appeal on the ground of limitation rather it would be in the ends of justice to consider the case on merit, so that, there will be no prejudice to the party. Accordingly, we thought it proper to condone the delay of 102 days in filing the instant appeal. In the result, I.A.No.11903 of 2019 is allowed and delay of 102 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.869 of 2019 The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 30.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.3503 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the departmental proceeding dated 05.04.2003 and the consequential order dated 04.06.2008, the enquiry report dated 28.06.2012, punishment order dated 24.10.2012, appellate order dated 28.07.2013 have been quashed and set aside.
(2.) The brief facts of the case required to be referred herein read as hereunder:- The writ petitioner was proceeded departmentally by issuance of memo of charge vide memo no.139 dated 08.03.003. It is alleged in charge that the writ petitioner provoked various constables not to do their job and duty as the strike called by the Jharkhand Police Men's Association. One of the officers informed the Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan that the writ petitioner and other fours persons have violated the order passed by the higher authority. The writ petitioner was put under suspension on 21.03.2003. The Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan informed the Deputy Inspector General of Police on 28.03.2003 that the writ petitioner was still participating in the strike making allegation against the Superintendent of Police even after his suspension on 21.03.2003, as such, the another charge was framed on 05.04.2003 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police who is the appellate authority of the Constable. It has been agitated before the learned Single Judge by referring to the charge dated 05.04.2003 along with charge dated 08.03.2003 which according to the writ petitioner is more or less same and similar in nature and the period is also same. It has been contended that since on the basis of the charge dated 08.03.2003, the departmental proceeding was concluded and the Superintendent of Police, Seraikella-Kharsawan dismissed the writ petitioner from service on 07.10.2003 but finally the order of dismissal has been set aside in an order passed in the memorial by the Inspector General of Police dated 18.06.2005, in pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service. But against the proceeding in pursuant to the memorandum of charge dated 05.04.2003, has been revived, in which the disciplinary authority has passed the order dismissing the writ petitioner which has been affirmed by the appellate authority also vide order dated 28.07.2013. According to the writ petitioner, since on the same and similar charges, the writ petitioner has already been directed to be reinstated in service, the revival of the second departmental proceeding cannot be said to be proper and justified.
(3.) Taking into consideration the fact that on the same and similar charges the writ petitioner has already been reinstated in service, as such, there is no requirement to revive the memorandum of charge dated 05.04.2003 and further since the other Constables have already been reinstated in service, therefore, the learned Single judge has rightly passed the order for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 24.10.2012 and 28.07.2013 as contained in Annexure-19 and 21 respectively to the writ petition. Assailing the same, the instant intra-court appeal has been filed. ;