O R D E R (Oral):-

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member The original applicant has approached this Tribunal challenging the Annexures A1, A2 and A3. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which ended in imposition of penalty in 2011 by Annexure A1. The appeal filed by him was rejected in 2012 by Annexure A2 order. Thereafter, he filed an O.A which was disposed of directing the applicant to file revision. A revision was, accordingly, filed which was disposed of by Annexure A3 order dated 07.06.2018.

2. The limitation virtually started atleast from the said date, which is

07.06.2018.

3. Explaining the delay, the learned Counsel for the applicant contended that several persons were allegedly involved in the incident which resulted in the disciplinary proceedings. Several of the officers under the respondents were prosecuted. Several other officers who were not prosecuted were subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In the prosecution, all were acquitted, since some of the crucial witnesses were hostile.

Prosecution proceedings against them ended in acquittal. It was also contended that identically situated persons as that of the applicant herein, had approached this Tribunal which resulted in Annexure A9 & A10. The enquiry reports against them were set aside and consequential orders imposing penalty on them were also set aside. They were directed to be given consequential benefits.

4. Relying on these events and those followed after Annexure MA3, the learned Counsel for the applicant contended that subsequent events justified the condonation of delay.

5. Several grounds were advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant to project that there was justifiable reason for condoning the dealy of 1062 days. With reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petion No.3/2022, it was contended that the actual delay comes only to 747 days. We are not inclined to accept that contention, since by virtue of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, limitation of period which expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.03.2022 alone were suspended during the period. The original applicant ought to have filed the Original Application on 07.06.2019. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the delay is 1462 days.

6. MA2 relates to a collateral proceedings which will not be a ground to condone the delay.

7. Though we are satisfied that there was some lapses on the part of the applicant which have not been justifiably explained and apparently, that the applicant woke from his slumber only after Annexure A9 and A10 were passed by this Tribunal, we are also inclined to look at the entire issue in a broader perspective and from the part of rendering substantial justice.

8. We find that similarly sitatued persons who had approached this Tribunal even way back in 2019 and 2020 were granted relief by this Tribunal. Probably, the applicant got a cue from the disposal by Annexure A9 and A10. Having considered the fact that the other similarly situated persons got relief from this Tribunal, we are inclined to take more liberal view and condone the delay, notwithstanding the severe objections raised by the learned SPC. Accordingly, delay stands condoned.

(Dated, 7^th February, 2024)

K.V. EAPEN JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER v List of Annexures in O.A No.68/2024 Annexure MA1- A true copy of judgement of the Hon'ble Apex court in Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) N.3/2020 and the connected Miscellaneous Applications dated 10.01.2022.

**************