Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri P K Jain vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 July, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.1733/2008 Thursday, this the 22nd day of July 2010 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Shri P K Jain Aged about 53 years s/o Shri M S Jain r/o BG6/41-C, Paschim Vihar Delhi-63 ..Applicant (None for applicant) Versus 1. Delhi Development Authority through its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi 2. Shri A K Nigam Vice Chairman, DDA Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi 3. Shri B K Chugh Engineer, Member, DDA Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi 4. Mrs. Pramila H Bhargwa Commissioner (Personnel) Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Karunesh Tandon) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
This case assails the penalties, which were inflicted upon the applicant in 2002 against which the appeals preferred in 2007 and 2008 have been dismissed by the appellate authority as time barred vide orders dated 6.2.2008 and 27.5.2008. In appeal memorandum, we find reasons and grounds for condonation of delay. However, the appellate authority while disposing of the appeal has stated that as no new facts have been made, which could warrant interference at this stage, appeal was rejected as time barred. Non-consideration of these grounds is raised by the applicant as an invidious discrimination in the matter of penalty.
2. Learned counsel for applicant has not appeared today but after hearing learned counsel for respondents, Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 is resorted to.
3. In appeal whether there is an issue of limitation or not, it is incumbent upon the appellate authority to consider the grounds for condonation of delay before entertaining the appeal on merits, yet the obligation to record reasons is not dispensed with. Recently the three Judge Bench of Apex Court in Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & others, (2010) 3 SCC 732 has impressed upon the disciplinary and appellate authorities to record reasons while passing orders after dealing with the contentions.
4. As we do not find that reasons have been recorded by the appellate authority while passing orders, OA is partly allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to exercise its prerogative to consider the grounds for condonation of delay and then dispose of the appeal(s) of the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/