IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that the law of limitation must be strictly applied, and that any request for condonation of delay must be supported by a sufficient and reasonable explanation, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No.291 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the order inflicting punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect has been quashed and set aside.

2. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned Sr. S.C.-III representing the State-appellants, has submitted that although the appeal is barred by limitation, since, it has been filed after delay of 190 days instead of filing it within 30 days as per the limitation prescribed to file Letters Patent Appeal. She has submitted that one Interlocutory Application has been filed explaining reasons said to be sufficient for condoning the delay. In addition to the said submission, it has also been argued by placing the case on merits, by making reference of the enquiry report in which the charge levelled against the appellant has not been found to be proved, but the Disciplinary Authority as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84, has also assigned the difference of opinion for the purpose of providing an opportunity to the delinquent-employee (respondent-writ petitioner herein). Although while following the mandate of the aforesaid judgment, instead of making reference of the word “representation”, the word “show-cause” has been referred. Hence, the basis upon which the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition is not available in the present case, since, the law as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kunj Behari Misra (supra) has been given a clear go-bye.

3. A serious objection has been made on behalf of the learned State Counsel saying that the appeal has been filed after lapse of 190 days and as such, it is not available for the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to argue the matter on merits.

4. This Court on consideration of the aforesaid objection is of the view that before entering into the issue on merits, the requirement under the law is that the delay condonation application is required to be considered so as to come to the conclusion as to whether explanation so furnished in the delay condonation application can be said to be sufficient cause to condone the delay. Therefore, this Court has considered the said Interlocutory Application.

5. The reason for going into the issue of limitation is as per the settled law that if any appeal is barred by limitation, then a right will be said to be accrued in favour of the other side if the appeal has not been filed within the statutory period and in that view of the matter, the law as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in such circumstances the issue of limitation is to be considered depending upon the sufficient cause if explained in the delay condonation application.

6. This Court, therefore, is of the view that first the consideration is to be given with respect to the explanation furnished in the delay condonation application so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the reasons explained in the delay condonation application can be said to be sufficient cause to condone the delay.

7. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application, that the appellants came to know about the impugned order on 15.04.2203; thereafter the concerned section produced the file on 17.05.2023 before the Under Secretary and thereafter the same was forwarded to the Deputy Secretary on 18.05.2023. Thereafter the file was sent to the Joint Secretary (Vigilance) and thereafter some legal opinions were taken and after approval, the memo of appeal could be filed on 11.08.2023, but in the process thereof, a delay of 190 days has occurred in preferring the instant appeal.

8. The delay, according to the appellants, is not intentional rather on account of procedural delay and in taking final decision, some extra ti