IMPORTANT POINT
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 negligence or lack of bona fides.

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Circuit Bench at Ranchi, in O.A. No. 051/000852/2018, by which, the prayer made in the original application has been declined to be entertained by rejecting the delay condonation application on the ground that the tribunal has been approached after lapse of about 8 years.

2. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that a detailed reason was explained before the learned tribunal showing the reason said to be sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

3. The ground has been taken that the writ petitioner was appointed and subsequent to his appointment, he was terminated vide order dated 13.03.2013.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved with the said order, has approached to the learned tribunal by filing original application being O.A. No. 175 of 2013(R) which was disposed of vide order dated 16.05.2014, by which, the order of termination passed against the writ petitioner was cancelled with a direction upon the respondent to allow him to continue as ‘Panjania’.

5. The writ petitioner has made representation in terms of the order dated 16.05.2014 for compliance of the order passed by the learned tribunal vide his representation dated 28.05.2014.

6. The respondents had reinstated the applicant in pursuance to the order dated 16.05.2014 by the order issued in this regard on 25.06.2014. But, after one year, the respondents had issued show cause notice to the applicant on 14.10.2014 asking the writ petitioner as to why, his appointment be not cancelled, which on review by the competent authority, has found to be irregular.

7. The ground has been taken by the respondents that the provisional selection of the writ petitioner was based upon the marks secured in matriculation examination, which he has submitted issued from the JAC of the Annual Secondary Examination of the year 2010, in which, the date of birth of the writ petitioner was shown to be ‘03.10.1990’ but the actual date of birth of the petitioner is ‘03.10.1972’ and hence, as per the writ petitioner, the allegation was leveled against the petitioner of suppression of the fact.

8. The writ petitioner was asked to furnish reply within 30 days vide show cause notice dated 14.10.2014, which was duly been replied vide reply dated 10.11.2014, but, the respondents had again terminated the petitioner from service vide order dated 04.12.2014.

9. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has approached the JAC for correction of his date of birth in the year, 2010, but, no decision since was taken by the JAC, hence, a writ petition was filed before this Court being W.P. (S) No. 5665 of 2019. However, during pendency of the writ petition, the JAC has issued the corrected date of birth certificate to the applicant in the month of Oct, 2020 which was the period of lock down.

10. The copy of the corrected date of birth examination registration slip, mark sheet, admit card, provisional certificate have been supplied to the applicant/petitioner in the month of Oct, 2020.

11. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has stated that on receipt of the corrected document from the JAC, the writ petitioner has submitted representation before the respondent concerned herein on 06.11.2020, 11.02.2021 and 28.02.2022 for his reinstatement in service but, no decision has been taken which prompted the writ petitioner to approach the tribunal and accordingly, the original application was filed along with the delay condonation application under the provision of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act read with Rule 8(4) of the CAT Procedure Rule, 1987 explaining the delay.

12. It has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the learned tribunal has not appreciated the fact that whatever reason was there in not approaching the tribunal, was beyond his control, since, in