Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ex.Const. Narender Singh vs The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 May, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH OA No 4336/2012 New Delhi this the 12th day of May, 2014 Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J) Ex.Const. Narender Singh S/o Shri Chokhe Lal, R/o B-561, Rajbir Colony, Gharoli Extn., Kondli, Delhi-110096. Applicant (By Advocate Shri R.K.Jain ) VERSUS 1. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, I. P.Estate, New Delhi. 2. Jt. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, New Delhi. 3. Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi District, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat) O R D E R Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J) :
The applicant was appointed in Delhi Police as Constable on 12.08.1991. Vide Office Order No.2371-81/HAP/NDD (D-1) dated 1.07.2006, the disciplinary authority directed initiation of disciplinary action against him and DE was entrusted to Inspector Ram Phal Sharma, who prepared summary of allegation, list of witnesses and list of documents to be relied upon in the disciplinary enquiry. The allegation against the applicant in the summary was that while posted in VII Bn. DAP, he remained absent from duty willfully/unauthorizedly and without any intimation to the department on the following occasions:-
S.No DD No & date DD No. Date of Period of Absent
of Absent Arrival Days Hours Minutes
1. 55,29.08.03 62, 07.10.03 39 7 -
2. 26, 14.10.03 05, 24.12.03 70 22 30
3. 07.10.03.04 42, 28.03.04 21 11 15
4. 30, 02.04.04 26,11.04.04 9 1 35
5. 27, 14.04.04 38, 17.04.04 3 10 15
6. 36, 04.05.04 79, 24.05.04 20 10 -
7. 21,19.06.04 10, 27.06.04 7 23 30
As mentioned in the summary of allegation, besides the aforementioned period, the applicant again remained absent from duty w.e.f.03.08.2004 till 28.11.2004 i.e. 117 days. It was also mentioned in the summary that even earlier also, the applicant remained absent from duty unauthorizedly on following occasions:-
Sl.No. Date of Absence Day Hours Minutes Remarks
1. 04.08.93 9 - - LWP
2. 14.12.92 22 - - LWP
3. 02.11.02 17 - - Dies Non
4. 14.06.2001 18 4 - Dies Non
5. 04.06.03 12 - - Dies Non
6. 04.07.03 28 - - Dies Non The summary of allegation, list of witnesses, list of documents and copies of listed documents were served upon the applicant. He did not plead guilty of the allegation. The Enquiry Officer examined the PWs. The applicant did not cross-examine either of the said witnesses. In his defence, he examined Shri Kunchi Nath S/o Late Shri Nathi Lal R/o Vill. Ghoda Ghadwa, PS Sasni, District, Hathras, U.P, who introduced himself as Fakar Baba and submitted that he worships the God and give the treatment to the patients by giving medicines of Herbal. According to him, the applicant was the patient of mental disorder and devil power and was given treatment for one and a half years. During the cross-examination, he admitted that he had no authorization or license from the Government to practice in medicine. He also stated that he had not maintained any record regarding treatment given by him to applicant. He again submitted that the applicant was his nephew, thus he had participated in the proceedings to give a statement in his favour on being called by him. The DW-2, Shri Shilendra Kumar who introduced himself as younger brother of the applicant submitted that the applicant was suffering from mental disorder for a period six years. On the basis of evidence and material available on record, the Enquiry Officer found the charges against the applicant as proved. Accepting the report of enquiry officer, disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon him. In the appeal preferred by him against such penalty order, applicant did not dispute his absence and only submitted that he was suffering from mental disorder and as and when felt normal, reported for duty. The appeal was rejected in terms of the order dated 25.10.2007. The applicant filed present OA on 19.12.2012 along with an application for condonation of delay. The only ground mentioned in the application is that the delay in filing the OA is neither intentional nor deliberate but was attributable to the reasons mentioned in para 1 to 4 of the application. When in para 1, it is stated that he was without any source of income, in para 3, he stated that his wife was doing some petty job and was getting some salary. Merely the mention of intention to approach the Court may be no ground to condone the delay. In order to seek the condonation of delay in approaching the Court, one needs to explain the circumstances beyond his control, which prevented him from approaching the Court/Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay in instituting the judicial proceedings needs to be explained sufficiently. In the present case, the applicant had made no efforts to explain the same. The charge against the applicant in the disciplinary proceeding was of absence from duty w.e.f. 3.08.2004 (ibid). The only reason put forth by the applicant for his unauthorized absence was that he was unwell, but he did not produce any evidence to support his plea. Two witnesses examined by him in his defence were his uncle and brother. According to them, the applicant was victim of the evil souls. Such plea for remaining absent from duty unauthorisedy can hardly be considered plausible and acceptable. Surprisingly, the applicant was fit enough to participate in the enquiry and adduce his defence. He was also fit enough to make an appeal against the order of dismissal, but after rejection of his appeal, he again claimed himself to be suffering from same ailment to seek condonation of delay in filing the OA. The period of limitation prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for filing OA before the Tribunal is one year. Thus, the OA is hopelessly barred by limitation.
2 As has been viewed by Honble Supreme Court in N.Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123)), it is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Length of delay is no matter and the acceptability of the explanation is the only criteria. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long time can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion. In P.K.Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556), Honble Supreme Court reversed the order passed by the High Court for condonation of 565 days in filing of an appeal by the State against the decree passed by the Subordinate Court and observed:-
Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. In Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Briham Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157), Supreme Court referred to some of the judicial precedents and observed:
What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost.
What colour the expression sufficient cause would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.
3. In view of the facts of the case and absence of satisfactory explanation for not approaching the Court within the prescribed period of time, we are not inclined to condone the delay of four years in filing the OA. The Misc. Application for condonation of delay is rejected and accordingly, OA is dismissed. No costs.
(A.K.Bhardwaj) (Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) sk