(Open Court)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD Allahabad this, the 17^th day of December, 2025 Misc. Application No. 1677 of 2023 in Diary No.2173 of 2023 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)

Ashok Kumar, S/o Om Prakash, a/a 53 years, R/o C-115/1, Sraddhapuri, Phase-2, Kankerkhera, Meerut Cantt. UP ....Applicant By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Upadhyay VERSUS

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Indian Post and Telecom, Department (PNT), Govt. of India, New Delhi

2. Director General of Indian Post and Telecom, Department, New Delhi PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA

3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Meerut Division (South), Meerut

4. The Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal) West Sub Division, Meerut, Meerut.

……Respondents By Advocate: Shri Shree Prakash Rai

O R D E R

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J.)

Heard Rishabh Kumar Pandey, holding brief of Shri S.K.

Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Shree Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. Instant M.A. No.1677/2023 has been filed by the applicant for condoning the delay in filing the original application registered as Diary No.2173/2023.

3. Learned proxy counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has approached this Tribunal for setting aside the punishment order dated 13.01.2003, passed by the respondnet-4, by which the applicant was dismissed from services as well as Appellate Order dated

28.06.2004, by which the punishment order was affirmed.

4. Learned proxy counsel for the applicant submits that the appellate order in service matter, was not made available to the applicant and, as such, the applicant made his best efforts to obtain the appellate order but unfortunately failed to do so, which resulted in a delay in filing the present Original Application. He further submits that an FIR was registered against the applicant in the year 1999, being Case Crime No. 39 of 1999, under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the applicant was convicted vide order dated 08.09.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Against which, a Criminal Appeal PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA No.140/2016 was preferred before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, wherein the applicant was acquitted from charges vide order dated 20.10.2022. Thereafter, this Original Application has been filed.

5. Under such circumstances, learned counsel prayed that delay, if any, in filing the present original application registered as Diary No.2173/2023 may be condoned.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant has completely failed to explain the delay and after 19 years from Appellate Order dated 28.06.2004, he suddenly woke up and filed the present Original Application, which is registered as Diary No.2173/2023 along with delay condonation application for challenging the punishment order as well as Appellate Order. He further submitted that it is well settled that any person, who is sitting over his right and grievances for a long span of time cannot liable to be got any relief from the court.

7. He further submitted that as per Section 21 of Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the limitation for filing the O.A. is one year from the date of when cause of action arises and as such, this delay condonation applicant is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay itself. He further submitted that applicant has not explained cogent reasons for condonation of delay in the delay condonation application along with affidavit in support thereof.

8. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the applicant was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.01.2003 passed by respondent no. 4, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 28.06.2004. However, the applicant approached this Tribunal only in the year 2023, after an inordinate and unexplained de