CONDONATION OF DELAY: NO "SUFFICIENT CAUSE" FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF DILIGENCE.

The Petitioner, a Conservancy Safaiwala (Sweeper) appointed on 28.11.1982, absented himself from duty without permission from 14.05.2012.

Despite repeated communications (Letters dated 09.07.2012, 10.07.2013, 28.09.2013, 12.11.2013) directing him to report for duty and explain his absence, the Petitioner failed to respond.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and during the inquiry, show cause notices and Daily Order Sheets were issued to the Petitioner, some of which were refused.

The Petitioner submitted medical documents to justify his absence, but these were submitted nearly one year and eleven months after his initial absence, were not from a CGHS/Government-empanelled hospital or registered practitioner, and did not cover the entire period of absence.

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service via an Order dated 28.07.2014, citing prolonged and unauthorized absence and failure to participate in the inquiry.

The Petitioner challenged this Dismissal Order by filing an Original Application (OA) with the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in 2018, nearly four years later, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the OA by an Order dated 09.07.2018, finding the Petitioner's explanation for the delay (non-communication of the Dismissal Order) lacked credibility and that he had not shown due diligence.

Whether the Tribunal committed an error in declining to condone the delay in filing the Original Application.

Whether the Tribunal's decision that the Petitioner's explanation for the delay did not constitute "sufficient cause" was perverse or suffered from manifest illegality.

The court applied the principle that condonation of delay is not a matter of right but requires the applicant to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for the delay, which cannot encompass negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides.

It also affirmed that the discretion to condone delay is judicial in nature and warrants interference in writ jurisdiction only if the decision is perverse or suffers from manifest illegality.

Furthermore, while limitation generally does not run until an impugned order is communicated, a mere assertion of non-communication is insufficient and must be credible and supported by circumstances.

The court also relied on Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh [2004 INSC 251], which holds that prolonged unauthorized absence constitutes grave misconduct, demonstrating lack of interest and devotion to duty, entitling the employer to draw appropriate conclusions in departmental proceedings.

The Court found no perversity or manifest illegality in the Tribunal's decision to deny condonation of delay.

The Tribunal correctly considered the Petitioner's explanation of non-communication of the Dismissal Order and found it incredible given the Petitioner's continuous absence since 14.05.2012, repeated communications issued to him, his refusal of some registered communications, and the fact that the Dismissal Order was sent through official channels.

His admission of not reporting for duty after the dismissal date and inconsistent pleas further undermined his claim of ignorance, demonstrating a lack of diligence.

Applying the principle from Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sardar Singh, the Court noted that habitual and prolonged unauthorized absence constitutes grave misconduct, and the Petitioner's medical documents were found unsatisfactory by the Disciplinary Authority for not being from authorized sources and not covering the entire absence period.

The inquiry proceeding ex-parte was justified as the Petitioner chose not to participate despite repeated notices.

Therefore, the Tribunal's exercise of judicial discretion was deemed appropriate, as it was based on the material on record and cogent reasons.

The present Petition was accordingly dismissed.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision not to condone the substantial delay of nearly four years in filing the OA, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate "sufficient cause" and exhibited prolonged indifference rather than due diligence.