Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARAVIND KUMAR, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Mool Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 8435-8436 of 2024, S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 2733-2734 of 2024
Decided On : 05-08-2024
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 14 – Imposition of penalty – Delay of 425 days in filing OA before Central Administrative Tribunal – Only charge against appellant was that he had deserted his family consisting of his wife and two children and was residing separately along with another woman without judicial separation from his wife – Complaint was lodged by wife of appellant – When Enquiry Officer commenced inquiry, she withdrew complaint stating that she had filed complaint under mistaken notion – Delay of 425 days in filing OA was not condoned by Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after impugned order came to be passed – No litigant stands to benefit in approaching courts belatedly – It is not length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining plea for condonation of delay, it is cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined – If cause for delay would fall within four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of length of delay same deserves to be condoned – However, if cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of period of delay, same would not be condoned – Punishment of dismissal imposed on appellant was totally disproportionate to alleged act – Impugned orders set aside – Appellant is entitled for all consequential benefits flowing from setting aside of orders of penalty. (Paras 17, 20, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Appellant has laid challenge in these appeals to the Order dated 14.09.2023 passed by High Court of Delhi whereby Writ Petition and connected applications came to be dismissed and Review Petition filed against said Order also came to be rejected on 03.11.2023 and consequently Order dated 10.12.2020 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi came to be affirmed whereunder Tribunal dismissed application for condonation of delay in challenging Order dated 22.11.2006 imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, on the ground of delay of 425 days in filing OA and held penalty imposed on appellant was justified given nature of charge.
Findings of Court:
If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily delay which has not been condoned by Tribunal and affirmed by High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at doors of appellant and cause shown is sufficient then both Tribunal and High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice oriented approach to condone delay.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - (!) (!) The Tribunal and High Court erred in not adopting a liberal/justice-oriented approach to condonable delay where cause falls within "sufficient cause" even if delay is long. - (!) (!) The Court holds that delay should be examined for cause, not just length, and sufficient cause can justify condonation irrespective of delay period. - (!) (!) The Supreme Court found the initial dismissal disproportionate and remitted for fresh disciplinary action in light of evidence that the complainant withdrew the charge. - (!) (!) Issues arising from withdrawal of OA by counsel and lack of signed withdrawal memo, impacting the delay and merits. - (!) (!) In exceptional circumstances (advanced age, lack of evidence, withdrawal of complaint), setting aside penalties and awarding consequential benefits is warranted; no judicial review on merits of penalty in such contexts. - (!) (!) (!) Background: charges of desertion; inquiry proceeded despite withdrawal; consequence was dismissal then reinstatement with minor penalty; subsequent representations and delays. - (!) Commissioner Nagar Parishad principle cited: High Court should not entertain delay on merits but only for sufficient cause in condonation. - (!) The appeals are allowed; impugned orders set aside.
JUDGMENT
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave Granted.
3. Appellant has laid challenge in these appeals to the Order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 5350 of 2022 and CM Appls. 16008 of 2022 and 46942 of 2023 whereby the Writ Petition and connected applications came to be dismissed and Review Petition No. 305 of 2023 filed against said Order also came to be rejected on 03.11.2023 and consequently the Order dated 10.12.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal” for brevity) came to be affirmed whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay in challenging the Order dated 22.11.2006 imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, on the ground of delay of 425 days in filing the OA and held penalty imposed on the appellant was justified given the nature of charge.
4. It would be apt and appropriate to narrate the factual background for appreciating the rival contentions raised in these appeals and the parties are referred to hereinafter as per their rank in the High Court.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
5. The appellant was appointed to Indian Statistical Services in the year 1982 and after being promoted as Deputy Director (STS) on regular basis in 1987 came to be promoted as Joint Director (JAG) on ad hoc basis in the year 1992 and regularised in 1993. In the light of the Judgment of this Court in Union of India and Others vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty and Others, (1994) 5 SCC 450 the appellant along with others was reverted in the year 1996 to the post of Deputy Director and again was promoted to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 08.06.2005.
6. Appellant came to be placed under suspension on 13.10.1997 followed by issuance of charge memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The only charge against the appellant was that he had deserted his family consisting of his wife and two school going children in December 1985 and was residing separately along with another woman without judicial separation from his wife. The said charge sheet was issued on the basis of the complaint lodged by his wife during August 1997 and he was not paid salary from May 1996 to July 1997.
7. The Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the memorandum of charge and during the pendency of the inquiry, the wife of the appellant filed an affidavit withdrawing her complaint on the ground that there had been some misunderstanding. Despite the said affidavit the enquiry officer proceeded with the inquiry and submitted enquiry report on 16.12.1998 holding appellant guilty of charge of deserting his family and further held that the charge of appellant living with another woman was not proved. This report resulted in order of dismissal of appellant from service imposed by the disciplinary authority by order dated 17.04.2000 and review petition filed against the same also ended in its dismissal.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal from service, appellant preferred an O.A. No. 116 of 2002 before the Tribunal which came to be allowed by Order dated 15.11.2002 and the order of dismissal came to be quashed with the following observations and remitted the case to the disciplinary authority:
3. Before us, at the time of arguments, it was pointed out that no allegation against the applicant of extra marital relations has been established and this fact is not in dispute. Taking clue from aforesaid, it was argued that the punishment of dismissal so a
Limitation – It is not length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining plea for condonation of delay, it is cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined ....
Inordinate unexplained delay of 20 years bars condonation; doctrine of laches prevents revival of stale claims.
The interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in the context of delay condonation applications should be liberal, focusing on the reasons for the delay rather than the duration alone, provided there is no....
The court affirmed that personal circumstances cannot justify excessive delays beyond statutory limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Administrative decisions must be supported by clear reasoning, especially when affecting an individual's rights, to ensure fairness and justice.
Appellate authority must consider delay condonation application under Rule 20 proviso before rejecting appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
