Mool Chandra v. UOI

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 253; 254(1); Limitation

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Condonation of 425-day appellate delay; cause matters more than length: The reported Supreme Court order condones a 425-day delay and emphasises that the sufficiency of the cause, not the numerical length of the delay alone, is the governing consideration. The Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal on merits.

Material facts and background

It would be apt and appropriate to narrate the factual background

for appreciating the rival contentions raised in these appeals and the parties are referred to hereinafter as per their rank in the High Court. BRIEF BACKGROUND 5.

The appellant was appointed to Indian Statistical Services in the

year 1982 and after being promoted as Deputy Director (STS) on regular basis in 1987 came to be promoted as Joint Director (JAG) on ad hoc basis in the year 1992 and regularised in 1993. In the light of the Judgment of this Court in Union of India and Others v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty and Others (1994) 5 SCC 450 the appellant along with others was reverted in the year 1996 to the post of Deputy Director and again was promoted to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 08.06.2005. 6.

Appellant came to be placed under suspension on 13.10.1997

followed by issuance of charge memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS 2

(CCA) Rules, 1965. The only charge against the appellant was that he had deserted his family consisting of his wife and two school going children in December 1985 and was residing separately along with another woman without judicial separation from his wife. The said charge sheet was issued on the basis of the complaint lodged by his wife during August 1997 and he was not paid salary from May 1996 to July 1997. 7.

Appellant / assessee submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

direction to the respondent authorities to consider his representation and same came to be disposed of by the Tribunal vide Order dated 08.05.2017 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 27.07.2015 within a period of 90 days. This resulted in same being disposed of and intimation/communication was forwarded to the appellant on 09.11.2017 informing the appellant thereunder that representation dated 27.07.2015 has been considered & rejected. Appellant was also intimated that his 5

representations had already been disposed of and same had been intimated vide communication dated 20/22-11-2016 itself and also forwarded copy thereof to the appellant along with communication dated 09.11.2017. The communication dated 09.11.2017 came to be challenged by the appellant in O.A. No.3034 of 2018 as well as the communication dated 20/22.11.2016. The said O.A. is said to have been withdrawn by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant purportedly without his consent and knowledge on 10.08.2018. The said order of the Tribunal dismissing the O.A. as withdrawn reads: “Learned Counsel for applicant seeks permission of the Tribunal to withdraw the O.A. 2. Permission is accorded. The O.A. is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the applicant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law.”

withdrawal of his application before the Tribunal only in the last week of August 2019 and immediately thereafter he had applied for certified copy of the order dated 10.08.2018 and filed another O.A. No.2066 of 2020 before the Tribunal along with Miscellaneous Application No. 3679 of 2019 for condoning the delay in filing the O.A. as he had been given opportunity to pursue his remedy in accordance with law. The application for condonation of delay came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated: 10.12.2020 by observing thus:

“3. The delay involved is more than one year. It is not as if the applicant was not aware of the proceedings. As a matter of fact, the OA is filed against the order of dismissal, passed against him was allowed and relief was granted. It is in compliance with the order by the Tribunal, that the revised order of punishment was passed. The appellate authority rejected the appeal in the year 2016. It is not the case of the applicant that he did not receive the same. Further, the applicant was very much free to pursue the proceedings, ever since he retired. Except stating that his earlier counsel did not take proper steps, the applicant did not substantiate the reasons for delay. 4. We are not convinced with the reasons given in the MA. The same is accordingly dismissed. The OA shall also stand dismissed.”

No.5350 of 2022 before the Delhi High Court which dismissed the writ petition by impugned order while affirming the order of the Tribunal and observed that justifiable penalty had been imposed by the disciplinary authority. Hence, this appeal. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED ADVOCATES 13.

appearing for the appellant that High Court on the one hand having opined not to entertain the writ petition on the ground of alleged unexplained delay, yet proceeded to deal with the matter on merits of the case, that too without affording an opportunity to the appellant and as such the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. He would

further elaborate his submissions by contending that Tribunal had committed an error in not condoning the delay of 425 days in filing O.A. No.2066 of 2020 and the delay was due to the mistake of the counsel, who without the knowledge and consent of the appellant had withdrawn the earlier O.A. No.3034 of 2018 and also without prejudice to the right of the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law and it is on account of lack of knowledge of the appellant’s application having been withdrawn and on acquiring knowledge about such unilateral withdrawal appellant had taken immediate steps to prosecute his legitimate claim before the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2066 of 2020 afresh along with an miscellaneous application No.3679 of 2019 for condonation of delay and as such Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay which refused to do so and same has been erroneously affirmed by the High Court. He would submit that a party should not suffer for the mistake of his counsel or the conduct of the counsel and he has placed reliance on Rafiq and Another Vs. Munshilal and Another (1981) 2 SCC 788 and N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123. 14.

receive liberal construction by the constitutional courts to advance substantial justice and the facts obtained in the instant case were sufficient to hold that the delay in filing fresh O.A. was not attributable to any laxity 8

Operative decision and relief

appellant representation was submitted to the authorities for complete exoneration and grant of promotion on par with his juniors. In the meanwhile, appellant attained superannuation and thereafter O.A. No.1579 of 2017 was filed for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation which was unattended and a direction came to be issued by the Tribunal on 08.05.2017 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation within a period of 90 days and accordingly it was disposed of as already noticed herein supra and intimated to the appellant by communication dated 09.11.2017. 19.

the writ petition or in other words confirmed the order impugned before the Tribunal on merits. This Court in Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara Vs. Labour Court, Bhilwara and Another reported in 2009 (3) SCC 525 has taken a view that while deciding an application for condonation of delay the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case. It has been further held:“5. While deciding an application for condonation of delay, it is well settled that the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the case and would have only seen whether sufficient cause had been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before it. We ourselves have also examined the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the High Court and, in our opinion, the delay of 178 days has been properly explained by the appellant. That being the position, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court. Consequently, the appeal filed before the High Court is restored to its original file. The High Court is requested to decide the appeal on merit in accordance with law after giving hearing to the parties and after passing a reasoned order.”

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Court in Union of India and Others v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty and
• Abhyankar case (N.L. Abhyankar v. Union

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Condonation of 425-day appellate delay; cause matters more than length. The operative result is classified as Quashed Or Set Aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Condonation of 425-day appellate delay; cause matters more than length. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Maintain a date-and-payment matrix for transfer, agreement, possession, investment and construction; capital-gains exemptions commonly turn on this chronology.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the authenticated official judgment PDF

Related Finin2min guidance