Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anil Ramdas Pawar, a retired BSNL employee, was working as an Assistant General Manager in the Telecom Department, Amravati. He was nominated as a member of the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC). He was served with a memorandum of charge alleging irregularities in accepting the second lowest tender, causing loss to the exchequer. An enquiry was held, and he was found guilty. The Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 22.08.2005, imposed a punishment of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay for three years with further directions that he would not get any increments during that period. The petitioner preferred a review petition, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed an Original Application (O.A. No.2168/2013) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur, challenging the disciplinary order. Along with the O.A., he filed an application (M.A. No.2145/2013) for condonation of delay, as the O.A. was filed after about 8 years from the date of the disciplinary order. The CAT rejected the condonation application on 19.01.2018, holding that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The petitioner then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the CAT's order. The High Court examined the facts and found that the petitioner's explanation for the delay was not satisfactory. The petitioner contended that he was pursuing review and other remedies, but the Court noted that the review petition was dismissed long back and there was no explanation for the subsequent period. The Court held that the Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the condonation application as the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. The writ petition was dismissed, and the CAT's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - The petitioner challenged a disciplinary order dated 22.08.2005 by filing an Original Application in 2013, i.e., after a delay of about 8 years. The Tribunal rejected the condonation application as the explanation for delay was not satisfactory. The High Court held that the Tribunal did not err in rejecting the application as the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. (Paras 2-6)
B) Limitation - Delay and Laches - Disciplinary Proceedings - The petitioner's explanation that he was pursuing review and other remedies was not sufficient to condone the long delay of 8 years. The Court observed that the petitioner did not act diligently and the delay was not properly explained. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the Original Application challenging the disciplinary order.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19.01.2018 rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Administrative Tribunal
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (03) 95
WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2018
A.S. Chandurkar, Vinay Joshi
Shri S. Marathe for Petitioner, Shri U.M. Aurangabadkar for Respondent No.1, Shri P.H. Khobragade h/f Shri R.G. Agrawal for Respondent No.2
Union of India, The Chief General Manager, Maharashtra Telecom Circle, Union Public Service Commissioner
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the Original Application against a disciplinary order.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to challenge the disciplinary order dated 22.08.2005 by filing an Original Application before the CAT, and sought condonation of delay in filing the same.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the punishment of reduction in pay scale imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and the subsequent rejection of his review petition.
Previous Decisions
The Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment on 22.08.2005; the review petition was dismissed; the CAT rejected the condonation application on 19.01.2018.
Issues
Whether the CAT was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the Original Application.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was pursuing review and other remedies, and therefore the delay should be condoned.
The respondents opposed the condonation, stating that the delay of about 8 years was not sufficiently explained.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the delay of about 8 years in filing the Original Application challenging the disciplinary order. The explanation that the petitioner was pursuing review and other remedies was not satisfactory, and the Tribunal did not err in rejecting the condonation application.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has called in question the legality and correctness of the order in M.A.No.2145/2013 in O.A. No.2168/2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur (CAT), on 19.01.2018.
The facts in brief are as such that, the petitioner was working as an Assistant General Manager, Telecom Department, Amravati with respondent no.2.
The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 22.08.2005, imposed punishment of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with further directions that he will not get any increments during the period of such reduction.
The petitioner preferred a review petition, however, it was dismissed.
The Tribunal rejected the condonation application as the explanation for delay was not satisfactory.
Procedural History
The Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment on 22.08.2005. The petitioner filed a review petition which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Original Application No.2168/2013 along with M.A. No.2145/2013 for condonation of delay before the CAT. The CAT rejected the condonation application on 19.01.2018. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 04.03.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Section 21
