Administrative decisions must be supported by clear reasoning, especially when affecting an individual's rights, to ensure fairness and justice.

ORDER :

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The petitioner, by the writ petition, has assailed the proceedings bearing No. RO/CHEN/HRD/2020-2021/625 dated 09.02.2021 whereby and where under, petitioner has been informed that the petition filed seeking condonation of delay of 510 days in filing the appeal on 03.11.2020, against the order of disciplinary authority vide RO/CHEN/HRD/DAD/2018-19/896 dated 21.01.2019 has been rejected on the ground that the “undue delay cannot be condoned”.

3. Crux of the petitioner’s case is that the impugned order has been passed by the Senior Manager of the respondent, who is not a competent person in terms of the Regulation 17 of the Central Bank of India Officers/Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (in short “Regulation 1976”).

4. It is also contended that as per the aforementioned Regulation 17 of the Central Bank of India Officers/Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (in short “Regulation 1976”). r/w. Clause 2 of the Schedule appended thereto, the appellate authority should be an officer not lower in rank and status than Assistant General Manager; that the petitioner had submitted his appeal to the Appellate Authority/Assistant General Manager through the disciplinary authority as provided under the Regulation 1976 that instead of the Appellate Authority/Assistant General Manager deciding the condone delay petition filed along with the appeal, as specified in Regulation 21 of the Regulation, 1976, the impugned order is passed by an officer i.e., Senior Manager, who is lower in rank to that of Assistant General Manager; and thus, the impugned order is contrary to the Regulations and the Schedule of Regulations, 1976.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the impugned order is not only passed by authority who is not competent or authorized to dispose of the appeal as per the Regulations, but also does not record reasons for not considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing/preferring the appeal with delay and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent is filed.

7. The respondent by the counter affidavit while denying the writ averments in particular claim of the petitioner of approaching the authority and seeking for being provided with the copy of the Regulations, contended that as per the Regulations 17, appeal against the disciplinary authority order is required to be filed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order; that the petitioner had filed the aforesaid appeal on 03.11.2020 with a delay of 510 days; that the Appellate Authority did not find the reasons/explanation stated in the condone delay petition to be satisfactory for the said authority to exercise discretionary power conferred on him under Regulation 21 of Regulation, 1976; and thus appellate authority accordingly, rejected/dismissed the condone delay petition.

8. The respondent by the counter affidavit further contended that on the Appellate Authority rejecting/dismissing the condone delay petition on the aforesaid ground, the said decision of the appellate authority was communicated to the petitioner by the impugned proceedings under the signature of Senior Manager and thus, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings as having passed by an authority who lacks authority, is without any merit and substance an