Nicholson Peter Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

.....extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 9/87 as well as the order dated 6.7.1991 passed by the d. was not satisfied with the cause shown by him and therefore, he passed an order of dismissal from service......of the order of dismissal passed by the senior s.p. ranchi in departmental proceeding no. 9/87 as well as the order dated 6.7.1991 passed by the d.i.g. of police, south chotonagpur, range, ranchi confirming the order of senior s.p., ranchi.3. the fact of the matter in short is that the original writ petitioner, namely, nicholson peter, who was a constable in bihar police, had gone on casual leave for 20 days from 1.8.1983. he had to report on duty on 20.8.1983 but he absented unauthorisedly till 27.8.1986 without any information. consequent there to, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him which was decided ex parte, finding the petitioner guilty. thereafter, show cause notice was issued to him by senior s.p. to which the petitioner submitted his show cause and stated therein that since he became mentally sick and was under treatment of doctor for about three years because of sudden death of his mother, therefore, he could not attend his duty. however, senior s.p. was not satisfied with the cause shown by him and therefore, he passed an order of dismissal from service.4. the petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the dig south chotonagpur, ranchi who by his order dated 7.3.1996 as contained in annexure 2 to the writ application dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of senior sp ranchi dismissing the petitioner from service.5. from the order of the appellate authority it appears that he has only mentioned in the order that he perused the relevant file and found the charge to be proved and therefore, he did not find any reason to differ with the order of the sr. sp and thereby he dismissed the appeal.6. in my view the order of the appellate authority suffers from serious infirmity of non-application of mind with the facts and circumstances of the case. he has only referred the order of the sr. sp ranchi and has not given his own independent finding after considering the relevant evidence on record. since the departmental proceeding was.....