Procedural delays by State authorities do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning appellate delay.

The appellant-State challenged the order dated 15 April 2026 passed by the Single Judge in WPS No. 4133 of 2022, whereby the respondent’s termination order dated 21 September 2020 and the departmental appellate order dated 17 March 2021 were quashed.

The writ appeal was filed with a delay of 72 days. During hearing, both sides informed the Division Bench that the issue and facts were identical to those considered in WA No. 775 of 2026, State of Chhattisgarh v. Bhojeshwar Chandrakar, which had been dismissed for delay and on merits by order dated 18 August 2026.

The parties accordingly requested disposal of the present appeal on the same terms.

Whether the delay of 72 days in filing the writ appeal should be condoned upon the explanation offered by the appellant-State?

Whether the Single Judge erred in quashing the respondent’s termination order dated 21 September 2020 and the departmental appellate order dated 17 March 2021?

The Court applied the principle that delay can be condoned only upon a clear, adequate and bona fide demonstration of “sufficient cause”; negligence, inaction, lack of diligence, or procedural delay attributable to State authorities is insufficient. This principle was drawn from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 INSC 932, and the authorities cited therein, including Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, and Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D), 2024 INSC 262, which holds that delay should not be excused as an act of generosity and that substantial justice cannot be pursued by causing prejudice to the opposite party.

On merits, the applicable principles were that termination of a regular employee for alleged service irregularities requires compliance with natural justice, including definite charges, a proper departmental enquiry and an effective opportunity of hearing; further, a departmental appellate order must disclose reasons.

The Division Bench treated the present appeal as factually and legally identical to WA No. 775 of 2026 and adopted the reasoning in that decision.

Applying the strict standard governing condonation of delay, the Court held that the appellant had not established sufficient cause for the 72-day delay; procedural sanction and internal governmental processes could not justify the failure to act within limitation.

The Court also accepted the conclusion that the respondent had been regularized and continued in service for several years, but was terminated without a regular departmental enquiry, definite charges or an effective hearing.

The appellate order was also non-speaking and showed no proper application of mind. Accordingly, the Single Judge’s decision to quash the termination and appellate orders disclosed no error warranting interference.

Independently, it found no merit in the challenge to the Single Judge’s order, which had quashed the termination dated 21 September 2020 and the departmental appellate order dated 17 March 2021.

The appeal was dismissed in terms of the order dated 18 August 2026 in WA No. 775 of 2026, with no order as to costs.