A tribunal cannot condone substantial delay mechanically without addressing the explanation and relevant chronology.

The employee was dismissed from service on 4 December 2004 following disciplinary proceedings initiated in 1994.

In 2005, he filed an original application before the Tribunal, which directed him to file a departmental appeal within one month; he was represented by counsel in that proceeding.

Instead, he filed the appeal on 21 August 2019, relying on his acquittal in the criminal case in June 2019.

In 2022, the Tribunal directed the employer to decide the appeal, which the employer rejected in 2023, noting that it had been filed approximately 16 years after the Tribunal’s direction.

The employee then filed O.A. No. 146 of 2025.

The High Court considered whether the Tribunal’s order dated 13 July 2026 condoning delay had adequately addressed the relevant chronology and the delay in filing the departmental appeal.

1. Whether the Tribunal rightly condoned the delay without accounting for the relevant dates and procedural history, particularly the approximately 16-year delay in filing the departmental appeal.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s order condoning delay could stand without reasons addressing the employee’s claimed ignorance of the Tribunal’s 27 May 2005 direction.

Delay may be considered liberally, but condonation is not a formality and must be supported by consideration of the relevant circumstances and reasons for the delay.

Delay cannot be condoned on misplaced sympathy; the decision must address the explanation offered and the material chronology.

The High Court found that the Tribunal’s order did not account for the sequence of events, including the 2005 direction to file an appeal within one month, the employee’s representation by counsel in that proceeding, and the eventual filing of the appeal in 2019.

Nor did the impugned order give reasons addressing the claimed ignorance of the 2005 direction or the resulting 16-year delay. Because liberal consideration does not dispense with reasoned consideration, the order could not stand.

It directed the parties to appear on 14 October 2026 and the Tribunal to reconsider the application in light of the chronology set out in the judgment and pass a reasoned order.

Rule was made absolute in those terms.