Governmental departments are not exempt from limitation laws, and internal bureaucratic inertia does not constitute sufficient cause for delay. Furthermore, disciplinary actions cannot rely on evidence from a preliminary inquiry, as this violates principles of natural justice by depriving the accused of necessary procedural protections like cross-examination.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J. :

I.A No. 1152 of 2025 The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 193 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order/judgment dated 24.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 6874 of 2019.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after passing of the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 in the said writ petition, the concerned department was immediately informed regarding the outcome of the said order and thereafter the original file along with entire documents was placed before the competent authority i.e., the Under Secretary, Water Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand (the appellant no. 4) to take appropriate steps with respect to filing of appeal against the order dated 24.04.2023.

3. It is also submitted that an opinion was sought from the Advocate General, Jharkhand and thereafter the original file along with entire documents was placed before the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand (the appellant no. 2) on 06.07.2023 to take appropriate steps in the matter.

4. It is further argued that the appellant no. 2 also sought opinion from the Advocate General, Jharkhand who advised to prefer appeal against the order dated 24.04.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6874 of 2019 and on 11.07.2023, a decision was taken to file appeal against the said order. Thereafter, draft memo of appeal was prepared by the office of the Senior Standing Counsel-I and the same was sent to the appellant department for final approval.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants also contends that several rounds of discussions were held and the grounds of appeal were finally approved for filing Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 24.04.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6874 of 2019 and thereafter the present appeal was filed on 22.12.2023.

6. It is further argued by the counsel for the appellants that the delay in filing of appeal has occasioned due to reasons beyond the control of the appellants. There are good grounds involved in the instant appeal and therefore, if the delay of 193 days in filing of the same is not condoned, the appellants will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

7. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is an inordinate delay of 193 days in filing the instant appeal and the present interlocutory application has been filed without assigning any reasonable explanation for committing such delay.

8. It is further submitted that the respondent was dismissed from service merely relying on a preliminary enquiry without taking into consideration his reply and as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order dated 24.04.2023.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

10. On bare perusal of the record, it appears that the order/judgment of the learned Single Judge was pronounced on 24.04.2023 and the counsel of the appellants was present on the said date. As such, the appellants had knowledge of the said judgment. They were also well aware of the legal position that a Letters Patent Appeal was to be filed within 30 days from the date of passing of the order/judgment of the learned Single Judge, however the appellants filed the present Letters Patent Appeal on 22.12.2023 i.e., after the delay of 193 days. Even the application for obtaining the certified copy was filed on 24.11.2023 i.e., after seven months of passing the impugned order dated 24.04.2023. Thus, the appellant