Appellate Authority must condone delay to decide service termination cases on merits rather than technicalities.

The petitioner was appointed as a Peon on a compassionate basis following the death of his father

On 26.08.2017, his services were terminated without a departmental enquiry or an opportunity of hearing, allegedly due to unauthorized absence for three years and four months

The petitioner initially filed WPS No. 8989/2022, which was withdrawn on 15.12.2022 to pursue alternative remedies

Subsequently, he filed an appeal under Section 91 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam along with a condonation of delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

The Additional Collector, Jashpur, rejected the appeal on 25.03.2026 solely on the grounds of an unjustified delay of approximately 1 year and 4 months from the High Court's liberty order and 6 years and 8 months from the termination order

1. Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the service-related appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering the merits of the termination

2. Whether the lack of a departmental enquiry prior to termination necessitated a merit-based review of the appellate order

Section 91 of the C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam read with Rule 3 of the C.G. Panchayat (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 regarding the statutory right to appeal

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay

The court emphasized the judicial principle established in Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Ors. v. Mst. Katiji and Others (1987) 2 SCC 107, which dictates that "substantial justice" should prevail over technical considerations of delay, as refusing to condone delay can defeat a meritorious cause at the threshold

The Court observed that while the petitioner had a significant delay in filing the appeal, the underlying dispute concerned the termination of service—an essential livelihood matter

The Court noted that the termination order was passed without conducting a mandatory departmental enquiry as prescribed under the extant service rules, despite the allegation of unauthorized absence

The Court reasoned that the Additional Collector adopted an overly technical approach; when delay is condoned, the highest prejudice is simply that the case is heard on its merits, whereas a refusal results in a potentially meritorious claim being discarded

Consequently, the Court found that the gravity of the procedural lapse in the termination (lack of enquiry) outweighed the procedural lapse in the appeal (delay).

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Additional Collector. The authority is directed to decide the appeal on its merits and in accordance with law without insisting on the issue of delay. The Court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the termination itself