Supreme Court Ruling: Delay in Appeal Must Be Condoned if Cause is Sufficient

August 7, 2024

The Supreme Court observed that delays must be condoned if they fall within the definition of “sufficient cause,” irrespective of their length. The Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of both a Writ Petition and a subsequent Review Petition. The High Court had upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision, which dismissed the appellant’s request for condonation of a 425-day delay in challenging an order that imposed a penalty of stopping one increment with cumulative effect, deeming the penalty justified given the nature of the charge.

The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated, “It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay; it is the cause for delay that must be examined. If the cause for delay falls within the four corners of ‘sufficient cause,’ the delay should be condoned regardless of its length. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, the delay should not be condoned, irrespective of its duration.”

BRIEF FACTS

The appellant, a member of the Indian Statistical Services, was promoted through various ranks but faced disciplinary action for alleged misconduct. The charge stemmed from a complaint by his wife accusing him of deserting his family, a complaint that was later withdrawn. Despite this, he was dismissed. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the dismissal, citing it as disproportionate punishment, and reinstated him with a minor penalty. After his retirement, his appeals for promotions and complete exoneration were repeatedly rejected. His application was dismissed due to a delay in filing, and the Delhi High Court upheld the tribunal’s decision, leading to the current appeal.

The Court referenced its decision in Commissioner, Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara vs. Labour Court, Bhilwara and Another (2009 (3) SCC 525), emphasizing that when deciding an application for condonation of delay, the High Court should not delve into the merits of the case. The Court stated, “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.”

The Court added that if negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then the delay, which was not condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, should be upheld. However, if no fault can be attributed to the appellant and the cause shown is sufficient, both the Tribunal and the High Court erred in not adopting a liberal or justice-oriented approach to condone the delay.

The Court noted that the High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order based on the view that the penalty imposed on the appellant was minor, neglecting the fact that in an earlier round of litigation, it was determined that the dismissal punishment was disproportionate to the alleged act. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and ruled that the appellant is entitled to all consequential benefits resulting from the annulment of the penalty orders. Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in