Ajit Singh, J.

Heard on admission.

This is an application for condonation of delay of 232 days in filing Writ Appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has allowed non-applicant’s WP(C) No. 6408/2007.

By order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has quashed the punishment of compulsory retirement of respondent with a direction to the applicants to re-instate him in service.

The non-applicant was working as Constable (General Duty) in B-179 Battalion of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on two charges viz. (i) on 20.4.2006 he remained absent from Camp/Line at noon without prior permission of any superior officer, and (ii) On the same day, he was deputed as quarter guard at 1600 Hours, but he was found absent from duty.

The Enquiry Officer, however, conducted the enquiry without the participation of any presenting or defence officer. There was no presenting officer to produce the documents and this task in fact was discharged by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer thus discharged dual role of the prosecutor and the judge. Also some of the additional documents incorporated by the Enquiry Officer were not furnished to the respondent and thus he was denied a fair opportunity to defend the charges. Not only this, the disciplinary authority also took into account one additional charge of physical assault by respondent though it was not included in the Memorandum of Charges dated 6.5.2006. For these reasons, the learned Single Judge has quashed the punishment of compulsory retirement of the respondent which was imposed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings.

As there is a delay of 232 days in filing the present appeal against the order of learned Single Judge, we shall examine whether there is “sufficient cause” for condonation of such a huge delay.

The application for condonation of delay is filed by the applicants along with an affidavit of Shashi Kant Upadhyay, D.I.G.P, G.C., C.R.P.F, Guwahati. The relevant paragraphs 5 to 8 of the application read as under:

“5. That the applicants/appellants being aggrieved by the above order, the applicant/appellant decided to file an appeal before the Hon’ble Court praying to set aside and quash the same. But the appellant authority upon receipt of the order dated 30/01/2014 and 31/01/2014 sought for legal opinion from the Central Government Counsel. Matter was examined by the appellant authority who then to further examine and to seek legal opinion with the concerned advocate, records were called for from the DGCRPF (Record Branch), Silchar. Due to the above reasons the delay of 232 days has occurred in filing this appeal before this Hon’ble Court.

6. That the applicant/appellant submits that the circumstances for which appeal could not be filed in time constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as such this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 232 days in filing the instant appeal.

7. That the applicant/appellant states and submits that the delay in filing the appeal within the prescribed period specified by laws was caused by the circumstances beyond the control of the applicant/appellant and there was no negligence on his part for filing the same. The applicant/appellant therefore submits that it is a fit case where this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay in filing this instant appeal.

8. That this application is made bonafide and for the ends of justice.

In view of the above premises, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition and after hearing the party/parties may be further pleased to condone the delay of 232 days in filing the instant appeal in this Hon’ble Court and would pass further order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The decision of Supreme Court in Office of Chief Post Master Ge