2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4761

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
1369/2022
O.A./715/2022

Repeated representations do not extend the limitation period under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985; condonation of inordinate delay requires sufficient explanation, which illiteracy alone does not provide.

Headnote:(A) Railway Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1968 - Rule 9 - Major penalty charge sheet issued for unauthorized absence - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 21 - Limitation for filing application - Condonation of delay - Principles of natural justice - Ex-parte inquiry - The disciplinary authority imposed penalty of compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity. (Paras 12, 23, 37)

(B) Limitation - Repeated representations - Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - The applicant's appeal against the penalty order was rejected on 26.06.2018, but the tribunal was approached only on 08.09.2022, causing a delay of over 3 years - Repeated representations to departmental authorities do not save the period of limitation or provide a fresh cause of action - The explanation of illiteracy, health problems, and the Covid-19 pandemic was not supported by sufficient documentary proof and was held insufficient to condone the inordinate delay. (Paras 23, 37, 38)

(C) Penalty - Lenient view - The disciplinary authority, while imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, granted full pensionary and retirement benefits to the employee. After the employee's death, the applicant was entitled to receive these monetary benefits, which were already available to her. (Para 39)

Facts of the case:
The applicant is the widow of a deceased railway employee who had served for about 33 years. He remained unauthorizedly absent from 02.01.2016 to 29.01.2018 (2 years and 28 days) due to mental health and physical ailments. The respondents issued a major penalty charge sheet on 12.02.2018. An ex-parte inquiry was conducted as the employee failed to attend despite acknowledged notices. The disciplinary authority passed an order on 04.05.2018 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement with full pension and gratuity. The employee died on 12.05.2018. The applicant filed an appeal/representation on 31.05.2018, which was rejected on 26.06.2018. She continued making further representations, the last one being on 06.01.2022, which was replied to on 19.05.2022. The present Original Application was filed on 08.09.2022, challenging the penalty order.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the explanation offered for the delay in filing the application was not proper. The applicant's appeal was rejected on 26.06.2018, yet the tribunal was approached more than 3 years later. Repeated representations do not save limitation. The court also noted that the penalty of compulsory retirement was a lenient view, with full pensionary benefits, and the applicant was already entitled to the monetary benefits after her husband's death. No ground for interference was made out.

Issues: The main issues were whether the inordinate delay in filing the Original Application should be condoned, and whether the ex-parte disciplinary proceedings and the consequent penalty of compulsory retirement were valid or suffered from a violation of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the explanation of illiteracy and health issues was insufficient to condone the delay, especially without supporting medical certificates. Repeated representations to the department do not extend the limitation period under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. As the employee had passed away and the penalty order allowed full pensionary benefits, no prejudice was caused to the applicant, and the matter did not warrant any interference. Result : MA for condonation of delay rejected. Consequently, OA dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 40)