Bhagwan Singh vs. State Of Punjab And Others

tition is for quashing the order the petitioner against the order d being time barred. he punishment of compulsory nd subsequently charge-sheeted uty w.e.f. 13.11.2015. he petitioner who was working Superintendent, office of the to join the duties on account of his son for treatment. He had said period. The reply was also PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.02.19 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-18894 4-2021 on 10.02.2016, however, rece , however, still the charge-sheet ng the appeal within the prescri in paras 23 and 24 of the ground nancial condition and he is livi now about passing of the order rence is also made to Rule 17(2 nt & Appeal) Rule, 1970 that may entertain the appeal even a A worthwhile reference can be Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 S ourt observed that, “Though we of condonation of delay when th naction or lack of bona fides, advance substantial justice…” In Mahadeo Vithoba Nika (1998) 9 SCC 716, the appeal w he appellate and revisional author was remanded for fresh decisio observed that even though the ap onal Tehsildar and filed the ap

-2- eived by the department on was issued to him. The reason ibed 45 days, was specifically ds, which primarily was due to ing in Tiri Garhwal, when he in the first week of February, 2) of the Punjab Civil Service t the Appellate Authority, if after the expiry of the period e made to Postmaster General CC 563, wherein Hon’ble the 2025.02.19 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-18894

significant merits but it 6. Assistant C dated 04.01 provision u months, wh decide the s 7. employee. decided the delay. Even better that t the one whi found to be appeal. Mo filing it. 8. when pitte approach in 9. case, the im

4-2021 delay, the Appellate Authority t had been dismissed solely on th The Appellate Authority in th Commissioner of Revenue S 1.2024, had rejected the appeal o under the GST Act for condo hich was set aside by the High same on merits.

Notably, filing of an appeal is It was imperative upon the e same on merits, instead of axi n for this Court to have a holis there was an application of min ich was appealed against, reflec sufficient explanation projected oreso, the petitioner would stand It is trite that the cause of jus d against technical considerat nstead of pedantic must be adopte Keeping in view the peculiar mpugned order dated 19.03.20

-3- was to consider the same on he basis of delay. he case of Arvind Gupta vs. State Taxes WPA-2904-2023 on the ground of there being no oning the delay beyond four Court and it was directed to a substantive right vested in an Appellate Authority to have ing it merely on the ground of stic view, it would have been nd by an authority higher than cted through an order. There is d for the delay in preferring the d to gain nothing by delaying stice deserves to be preferred, tions. As such, a pragmatic ed. facts and circumstances of the 020, Annexure P-5 is set aside.

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.02.19 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

CWP-18894

The matter on merits, granting to 10. 17.02.2025 parveen kumar

4-2021 is remitted to the Appellate Auth in accordance with law, with the petitioner an opportunity of h The present petition is disposed

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No -4- hority, for rendering a decision hin a period of four months, hearing. d of accordingly. (AMAN CHAUDHARY)

JUDGE

PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.02.19 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.