Exhaustion of statutory remedies: Appellate authority directed to decide pending departmental appeal through reasoned and speaking order within stipulated timeline.

The applicant, a Khalasi in the Engineering Department of North Eastern Railway, was served a charge-sheet on 02.01.2023 regarding an incident dated 09.11.2022

Following an inquiry where the applicant alleged a lack of proper opportunity to defend himself, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 15.02.2024 imposing a major penalty of reduction in minimum grade pay scale for 40 months

The applicant filed a statutory departmental appeal on 16.03.2024 via registered post but received no communication regarding its status despite seeking information under the RTI Act

Consequently, the applicant approached the Tribunal with a delay condonation application (MA) and the Original Application (OA) challenging the punishment order

1. Whether sufficient cause existed to condone the delay in filing the Original Application under the Limitation Act/Administrative Tribunals Act.

2. Whether the appellate authority should be directed to decide the pending statutory appeal within a fixed timeframe.

Rule 6(2)(v) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968, which governs the imposition of major penalties

The principle of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, noting that pursuing a departmental remedy bona fide constitutes a valid ground for delay condonation

The Tribunal also exercised its power to direct administrative authorities to perform their statutory duties (deciding an appeal) within a reasonable period

The Tribunal first examined the delay condonation application, observing that the applicant had been actively pursuing departmental remedies by filing an appeal and RTI applications immediately after the punishment order

It held that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, satisfying the legal requirement for "sufficient cause"

Regarding the merits of the OA, the Tribunal noted that the statutory appeal dated 16.03.2024 remained undecided by the respondent authorities

Rather than adjudicating the merits of the punishment, the Tribunal determined that judicial economy and the exhaustion of alternative remedies necessitated a direction to the appellate authority to resolve the pending grievance first

It disposed of the Original Application by directing Respondent No. 2 (Competent Appellate Authority) to decide the applicant’s departmental appeal dated 16.03.2024 by way of a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the court’s order

The applicant was granted liberty to file a comprehensive fresh representation within two weeks to be considered alongside the appeal

The Tribunal refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case