ORDER
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. The petitioner, a CISF Personnel, was proceeded departmentally on the charge of the gross misconduct on the ground that while filling up the attestation form he knowingly suppressed the factual information regarding his involvement in police case under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code which was detected at the time of verification of his character and antecedent. He was also arrested in the said criminal case which was highly prejudicial to the good order and discipline of an Armed Force of the Union. The grievance of the petitioner was that he was Tamil and was only Matriculation and therefore, he was not conversant with either Hindi or English at the time of filling up the said attestation form. In fact the said attestation form was filled up on the instruction and advice by his Ustad. Therefore, he had no intention to suppress any fact. In the departmental enquiry the charge against the petitioner was found to be proved and consequently on the basis of the enquiry report the Disciplinary authority by issuance of Annexure 5 dated 18.11.2000 imposed punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner.
2. Against the said order of dismissal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed by the DIG CISF Unit BCCL Dhanbad vide order dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure-7). From perusal of the appellate order it appears that the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation holding that it was time barred as it was filed beyond the period of 30 days provided under Rule 42-A of CISF Rule, 1969.
3. The appellate order (Annexure-7) was challenged by the petitioner before the Revisional Authority which was also dismissed by order dated 25.7.2002 (Annexure-9 to the reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents) during the pendency of the present writ petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate Court Wrongly and illegally dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on technical ground without considering the appeal on merit.
5. Rule 42 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 provides that a member of the Force may appeal against an order imposing upon him any of the penalties specified in Rule 31 to the authority immediately superior to the authority imposing the penalty.
6. The period for limitation for filing an appeal is provided under Rule 42(A) of the CISF Rule 1969 which reads as follows :
42-A. period of limitation for appeals.No appeal under these rules shall be entertained unless it is submitted within a period of one month from the date on which the appellant receives a copy of the order appealed against:
Provided that the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period, if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not submitting the appeal in time.
7. From the aforesaid provision of Rule 42-A, it is clear that the appeal has to be filed mandatorily within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order appealed against.
8. However, discretion has been given to the appellate authority that if he is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for delay in filing the appeal, the appellate authority had a power to condone such delay.
9. In the present case, it is not disputed that the copy of the order In imposing punishment was served to the petitioner on 28.11.2000 whereas he filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 18.2.2001 i.e., much beyond the period of one month prescribed under Rule 41-A of CISF Rules 1969.
10. Neither there is any averment made in the present writ petition nor it is a case of the petitioner that he had filed any application along with the memo of appeal before the appellate authority for condoning the delay in filing the appeal by showing sufficient cause.
11. The appellate authority could have exercised his jurisdiction/discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal if at all the petitioner would have shown sufficient cause but as it appears that no cause at all was shown by the petitioner before the appellate authority for delay in filing the appeal as provided under the Rules. Therefore, in my view, the learned appellate Court was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as time barred but the appellate Court had no other option but to dismiss the appeal on the ground of limitation as there was nothing before him so as to come to the conclusion that there was any ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the petitioner.
12. From perusal of the revisional authority as contained in Annexure-9 it appears that that the revisional authority has fully considered the case of the petitioner and then after holding that in spite of clear warning at para 1 of the attestation form that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be disqualification and is likely to render the candidates unfit for employment under the Government.
13. Since the case of the petitioner was considered by the revisional authority on its merit and finding of facts has been arrived at by him, therefore, this Court would not be justified in substituting to its own finding on fact contrary to the finding arrived at by the revisional Authority.
14. In view of my discussions and findings above, I find that there is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.