The court affirmed that personal circumstances cannot justify excessive delays beyond statutory limitation under the Administrative Tribunals Act.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J):

Both the captioned Original Applications (OAs) have been filed by the same applicant challenging the orders of penalty pursuant to disciplinary proceedings and in both the accompanying Miscellaneous Applications (MAs), he has sought condonation of delay in filing of the respective OAs. Since, besides facts are substantially common and the grounds in support of the claim in the MAs and OAs are identical, both the MAs have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common order.

2. In OA No. 745/2023, the applicant has challenged the Appellate Authority order dated 30.08.2017, Disciplinary Authority order dated 30.06.2016 and enquiry findings/report dated 02.05.2016. In OA No. 746/2023, he has challenged Appellate Authority order dated 30.08.2017, Disciplinary Authority order dated 10.05.2016 and enquiry findings/report.

3. In both the aforesaid MAs i.e. MA No. 914/2023 and MA No. 915/2023, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay of 1640 days in filing of the respective OAs.

4. The grounds pleaded for seeking condonation of delay in the MAs are:

(i) That the applicant belongs to ST category and a remote village in Rajasthan where his father who is 80 years old, resides and the applicant has to take care of him while also taking care of his own two children who reside with him in Delhi. Thus, the applicant has to rush between his village and Delhi putting him under great mental stress.

(ii) That due to Covid-19 pandemic which broke out in 2020 and lasted upto March, 2022, the applicant could not approach the Tribunal

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to the above, the applicant has been under great mental stress. Moreover, his career is getting affected as his batchmates have been promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector and the applicant is himself due for promotion to the rank of Inspector. If the applicant’s prayer for condonation of delay in filing the OA is not accepted, it will affect his career permanently which cannot be compensated in any manner, learned counsel submits.

6. Lastly, he submits that the delay has neither been deliberate nor intentional and if the same is not condoned, the applicant will suffer irreparable loss while it may not affect the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that as a result of the orders of penalty, the applicant is suffering recurring loss in his pay and perks, the cause of action is a continuing one and the OA is within limitation and/or alternatively, the delay if any, in filing of the OAs deserve to be condoned. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 .

8. The respondents have filed counter reply to the MAs and OAs. They have disputed the prayer of the applicant for condonation of delay as well as his claim as raised in the OAs.

In response to the MA seeking condonation of delay and the grounds pleaded thereof on behalf of the applicant, it is averred on behalf of the respondents that the applicant belonging to ST category has no concern with the present matter and his claim regarding the ill health of his father is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is further averred that the applicant is misleading the court inasmuch as the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal vide its order dated 30.08.2017 which is about three years prior to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and all Government offices have been functioning with full strength since 2021. The applicant filed the OA only in the year 2023 i.e.