ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

In this case relating to punishment, the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(i) To quash the impugned revision order dated 30.09.2025 and punishment order dated 29.09.2022 (contained as Annexure No. A-1 & A-2 to this OA), with all consequential benefits.

(ii) To restore the pay of the applicant and release the difference thereof.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.

(iv) Cost of the present case.”

The facts of the case are that the applicant was proceeded against departmentally under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS (CCA) Rules, hereafter] and after the departmental enquiry he was punished by the disciplinary authority vide impugned order dated 29.09.2022 by reducing his pay by two stages for a period of three years during which he would not earn increment and after the expiry of the three year period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The applicant did not submit any appeal against the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. However, he submitted a revision petition dated 16.05.2025 to the revising authority, but his petition was rejected as time barred vide impugned order dated 30.09.2025. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.

The applicant submits that he could not prefer appeal within the stipulated time as he could not search for records for appealing and that his wife was also ill. He contends that other officials have been awarded lesser punishment than him and that his revision petition has been rejected as time barred even though the major penalty imposed on him would jeopardize his career.

The respondents submit that in furtherance of rule 29 of the CCS (CCA) Rules relating to revision, the Postal Directorate, vide letter dated 30.07.2019, has laid down the following:

“Heads of Circles may exercise the powers of revision under Rule 29(1)(vi) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as suo moto revision or otherwise within six months of the order proposed to be revised. The petition preferred by the charged officials after six months may also be considered by the Heads of Circles as even where the time limits have been laid down, the competent authorities have discretion to waive the limits for good and sufficient reasons.”

(emphasis supplied)

The respondents contend that though the applicant has cited the illness of his wife for the delay, he has not submitted any evidence corroborating his version for the delayed submission.

We have heard the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that ends of justice would be served if the applicant’s revision petition is decided by the competent authority on merits. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes.

It is noted that the instructions dated 30.07.2019 allow for waiver of time limits for good and sufficient reasons. It is also noted that rule 31 of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides as follows:

“31. Power to relax time-limit and to condone delay

Save as otherwise expressly provided in these rules, the authority competent under these rules to make any order may, for good and sufficient reasons or if sufficient cause is shown, extend the time specified in these rules for anything required to be done under these rules or condone any delay.”

(emphasis supplied)

It is well settled that the power to condone delay should be exercised keeping in mind that substantial justice is paramount.

Considering that the applicant has preferred the revision petition during the pendency of his penalty and has cited grievance relating to the quantum of punishment meted out to him in comparison to others, we are of the view that his revision petition should be decided on merits in the interest of substantial justice.

In view of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document