Point of Law: Condonation of Delay – Sufficient cause - The words "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to a party.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

Order on Delay Condonation Application No. 2 of 2021

1. Matter is taken up through video conferencing.

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3.

3. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 537 days.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have no objection in condoning the delay.

5. The grounds taken for condonation of delay are good and sufficient.

6. Delay condoned.

7. Application is allowed.

Order on Appeal

1. The writ petitioner-appellant was working on the post of Driver in Civil Lines Bus Depot, District Allahabad. He was placed under suspension by the Assistant Regional Manager, Civil Lines, Bus Depot, Allahabad vide order dated 10.10.2012, thereafter, matter was inquired by an Enquiry Officer duly appointed by the department. It was found by the Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the petitioner-appellant are correct and as such a show cause notice was issued to him on 24.4.2013. Reply to the aforesaid notice was submitted by him on 13.5.2013. Taking into consideration the aforesaid an order dated 22.5.2013 was passed by the respondent no.3/Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Allahabad by which balance salary of the suspension period and two increments were with-held effective from future. Apart from the same directions were given to recover the amount of 28 litre diesel from the salary of the petitioner-appellant.

2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid a statutory appeal was preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant as provided under Section 69 of the U.P State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulation, 1981 before the respondent no.2 namely Chief Manager (Sa), U.P.S.R.T.C, Head Office, Lucknow. It is provided under Section 69 of the Regulations of 1981 that the appeal could be preferred within a period of three months but since appeal was preferred after the expiry of three months the same was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that the appeal submitted by the petitioner appellant was time barred. The aforesaid order was passed by the appellate authority on 03.10.2016 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant being barred by time.

3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order the petitioner-appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court being Writ A No.12268 of 2019. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgement and order dated 06.08.2019 solely on the ground of unexplained laches on the part of the petitioner-appellant. Aggrieved against the aforesaid petitioner-appellant has preferred the present special appeal.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that reasons for delay in filing the writ petition as well as in filing appeal before the appellate authority was satisfactorily explained by him in the writ petition but without considering the same the writ petition filed by him was rejected by the learned Single Judge. It is further argued that due to mental and physical harassment he was not able to approach this Court within time.

5. In view of the same, it is argued that delay in filing the appeal before the appellant authority as well as in the writ petition be condoned and the appellate authority be directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant on merits.

6. The primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause.

7. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of leg