Prashant Kumar Mishra, J
1. Petitioner was visited with penalty of stoppage of one increment of the year 1987, which was to affect his future increments and as such, the
penalty of stoppage of one increment was with cumulative effect. Against this order (Annexure-P-3) dated 23.09.1988, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Authority through the Chairman of the Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Bank. The said Chairman passed an order (Annexure-P-
4) dated 27.02.1998 intimating the Manager of the Bank to inform the petitioner that his appeal being barred by limitation, the same cannot be
forwarded to the Appellate Authority i.e. the Board of Directors of the Bank.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied with the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the appeal
was barred by limitation, the decision either to condone the delay or to dismiss the appeal in limine as barred by limitation is to be reached by the
Appellate Authority. The Chairman of the Bank, who himself imposes the penalty, at the first instance, cannot refuse to forward the appeal to the
Appellate Authority.
3. In view of the above, the order (Annexure-P-4), which is a communication intended to be served on the petitioner, and the consequent
communication to the petitioner vide Annexure-P-6 dated 11.03.2008 are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Chairman of the Bank or the
Authority who is now functioning at par with the then Chairman of the Bank to forward the petitioner's appeal to the Appellate Authority within 30
days from today. The appellate Authority shall thereafter decide the petitioner's appeal in accordance with law.
4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the petitioner's plea for condonation of delay or on merits of the appeal.
5. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above stated terms.