1. Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is a delay of 190 days in filing this appeal. The application has been filed to explain the delay caused in the process of filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after obtaining certified copy of the order, it was sent to the Corporation. It was examined by the Legal Cell, and after their opinion, it was sent to the Administrative Cell for sanction. After receiving the legal opinion and sanction for filing the appeal, it was processed and filed thereupon. The process took time. The delay has been caused largely in the process, thus it may be condoned as otherwise merit of the case may not be ignored due to delay in filing of the appeal.

3. Petitioner-non-appellant, present in person, has opposed the application and submits that there is no justifiable reason for delay in filing of the appeal.

4. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

5. There is a delay of 190 days in filing of the appeal. The application for condonation of delay has been filed. The delay has been caused mainly in process of filing of the appeal.

6. We have considered the aforesaid in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353. It has been held that the Court, while examining the delay, need not to seek justification of delay of each hour or day. It is also that the merit should not be sacrificed due to delay in filing the appeal unless it is highly belated. It is in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 132.

7. In view of the above, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed.

8. We have heard the appeal.

9. The petitioner-non-appellant, while working on the post of Conductor, was served with three different charge-sheets followed by an enquiry. The charges were found proved in the inquiry. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner-non-appellant was called for hearing. The allegations have been made by the petitioner-employee that copy of the inquiry report was not supplied, however, notice for hearing has been received by him, as admitted. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of dismissal from service. The punishment of dismissal is on the allegations of absence from duty, causing loss of revenue to the Corporation as the schedule of buses got affected and, in the other charge-sheet, absence from duty on transfer from Kota to Hanumangarh. The gist of three charge-sheets has been mentioned in the order dated 10.05.2006 at Annexure-7 which is reproduced hereunder:-

¼1½ vkjksi i=kad 40@10-01-2000 & vkjksih fnukad 30-09-1999 ls fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ,oa vuqefr ds LosPNk ls viuh M;wVh ls fnukad 11-12-2001 rd vuqifLFkr jgk gSA bUgsa M;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus gsrq uksfVl la[;k 1251 fnukad 18-11-1999 ,oa 1213 fnukad 20-10-1999 buds ?kj ds irs ij fHktok;k tkdj M;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus gsrw fy[kk x;k fdUrq mDr nksuksa uksfVl buds }kjk ÁkIr ugha fd;s x;a ,oa Mkd foHkkx dh bl fVIi.kh ds lkFk ckj&ckj ?kj tkus lwpuk nsus ij ysus esa vkuk dkuh djrk gS okfil dk;kZdky dks ÁkIr gqbZA

¼2½ vkjksi i=kad 1476@13-10-1997 & vkjksih dh M;wVh fuEu fnukadks dks mlds lkeus vafdr ekxksZ ij FkhA buds }kjk vksQ gksrs le; okgu ds fdehŒ fujLr fd;s gS ftldk dkj.k ;k=h Hkkj u gksuk ,oa ;a= nks"k crk;k x;k gS%&

ØŒ laŒ	vksQ fnukad	ekxZ la[;k	fujLr fdehŒ	gkfu	fujLr dk dkj.k
1	04-09-1997	66&67	342	3420	dk;Z'kkyk ,oa vU; ekxZ ls
2	08-09-1997	62&63	162	1620	vU;ekxZ ;k=hHkkj
3	12-09-1997	62&63	162	1620	dk;Z'kkyk ysV@;k=h Hkkj ugha
4	24-09-1997	66&67	318	3180	vksu