Administrative procedural delays, without satisfactory explanation, do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of appellate delay.

Bhupesh Kumar Nishad, working as a Peon with the Chhattisgarh Council of Science and Technology, had initially been engaged on Collector rate during 2011–2012 and was regularized in 2014 on the post of Peon in the regular pay scale.

His services were terminated by order dated 21 September 2020, and his departmental appeal was rejected by a non-speaking order dated 17 March 2021.

He challenged both orders in WPS No. 4639/2021.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 15 April 2026, quashed the termination and appellate orders, and directed reinstatement with notional pay and seniority but without back wages.

The State preferred the present writ appeal with a delay of 72 days.

The parties submitted that the issue was identical to WA No. 775/2026, in which a 70-day delay had been refused condonation and the appeal dismissed.

1. Whether the delay of 72 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned on the ground of procedural sanction by the State authorities.

2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in quashing the termination order dated 21 September 2020 and the departmental appellate order dated 17 March 2021.

3. Whether the termination of a regularized employee without a regular departmental enquiry, framed charges, and an effective opportunity of hearing was legally sustainable.

The Court applied the doctrine of “sufficient cause” governing condonation of delay, holding that delay cannot be condoned where negligence, inaction, lack of bona fides, or absence of diligence is shown; limitation must be applied with due rigor.

It relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 INSC 932, Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1260, and Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 92, as well as Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, for the requirement of an adequate and sufficient explanation.

It further relied on Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, 2024 INSC 262, which held that delay should not be excused as an act of generosity and that substantial justice cannot cause prejudice to the opposite party.

The Court also applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, requiring a regular departmental enquiry, definite charges, and an effective opportunity of hearing before terminating a regularized employee.

Under Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 733, the cause preventing timely filing must arise within the prescribed limitation period; subsequent administrative events cannot, by themselves, constitute sufficient cause.

The Division Bench found the present appeal factually and legally identical to WA No. 775/2026 and therefore adopted the reasoning in that case.

Applying the strict standard for condonation of delay, the Court held that the State’s explanation based on procedural sanction and internal administrative processing did not establish sufficient cause or demonstrate diligence during the limitation period.

On the merits, the adopted reasoning established that the employee had been regularized and had continued in service for several years, but was terminated without a regular enquiry, framed charges, or an effective hearing.

Any alleged irregularity in the initial appointment or regularization, absent fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment by the employee, could not justify summary termination after prolonged service.

The appellate order was also non-speaking and disclosed no proper application of mind.

It consequently dismissed WA No. 788 of 2026 in terms of the order dated 18 August 2026 passed in WA No. 775/2026.

The order of the learned Single Judge quashing the termination dated 21 September 2020 and the departmental appellate order dated 17 March 2021 therefore remained undisturbed.

No separate order as to costs was recorded in the present order.