Unexplained delay in challenging disciplinary orders bars relief under Section 21.

The applicant challenged a disciplinary penalty order dated 25 October 2002 and the appellate order dated 8 October 2021.

He had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 330/01077/2017, which directed the respondents to decide his pending departmental appeal; the appeal was subsequently dismissed.

In 2025, he filed the present O.A. and sought condonation of delay, relying principally on illness and treatment, including hospitalisation from 12 April to 29 May 2021 and continued treatment until 22 September 2022.

The respondents opposed condonation, arguing that the O.A. was time-barred and the delay inadequately explained.

1. Whether the delay in filing the O.A. challenging the orders dated 25 October 2002 and 8 October 2021 should be condoned under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

2. Whether the applicant’s illness and treatment sufficiently explained the delay in approaching the Tribunal.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 prescribes the limitation applicable to applications before the Tribunal; delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown.

The Tribunal relied on State of Kerala & Ors. v. Krishnan N.V., Civil Appeal No. 10898 of 2025, decided 19 August 2025, which reaffirmed that inordinate delay and laches may defeat relief: delay reflects inactivity, may prejudice the proceedings, and does not ordinarily warrant indulgence absent adequate explanation.

That decision, in turn, quoted State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das on the consequences of unexplained delay.

The Tribunal considered that the penalty order dated 25 October 2002 had been challenged only after a substantial lapse of time, and that the challenge to the appellate order dated 8 October 2021 was brought in 2025, beyond the prescribed limitation period.

Although the applicant relied on illness and produced medical documents, the Tribunal found that this explanation did not satisfactorily account for the delay. It also noted his prior knowledge of the penalty and his earlier approach to the Tribunal, and treated his conduct as acquiescence. Applying the principles on delay and laches in Krishnan N.V., the Tribunal declined to extend indulgence.

Consequently, it dismissed the O.A. as barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.