Examine ‘Cause Of Delay’ & Not ‘Length Of Delay’; Condone Delay If There’s Sufficient Cause

Summary:

[1]This case revolves around a government employee, Mool Chandra, who faced disciplinary action for allegedly deserting his family. The case has a long history of legal battles, involving multiple disciplinary proceedings, appeals to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), and ultimately a writ petition to the Delhi High Court. Setting aside the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court which had refused to condone the delay of 425 days being sufficiently explained by the litigant, the Bench observed that withdrawal of the application by the litigant’s advocate without informing the litigant would be a sufficient cause for the delay caused in preferring an application.

Facts:

Mool Chandra was a government employee who faced disciplinary action for allegedly deserting his family. His wife initially filed a complaint but later withdrew it, stating it was a misunderstanding. Despite the withdrawal, disciplinary proceedings continued, resulting in a minor penalty of stopping one increment. Mool Chandra challenged the penalty through various legal avenues, including the CAT and the Delhi High Court.

Issue:

1. Whether the delay in filing an appeal before the CAT should be condoned.
2. Whether the penalty imposed on Mool Chandra was justified, given the withdrawal of the complaint by his wife.
3. Whether the High Court erred in not considering the merits of the case while deciding the condonation of delay application.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the CAT and the High Court.
• The court held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CAT should be condoned, as the appellant had provided sufficient reasons for the delay.
• The court criticized the High Court for considering the merits of the case while deciding the condonation of delay application.
• The court found the penalty imposed on Mool Chandra to be unjustified, given the withdrawal of the complaint by his wife and the lack of evidence to support the charges.
• The court directed the respondents to grant Mool Chandra all consequential benefits arising from the setting aside of the penalty order.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures and the need for courts to adopt a just and equitable approach. The court’s emphasis on condoning delay and considering the merits of the case is significant, as it ensures that justice is not denied due to technicalities. The case also underscores the importance of evidence in disciplinary proceedings and the need for fair treatment of government employees.

[1] https://ksandk.com/wp-content/uploads/mool-chandra-v-uoi-553779.pdf

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

Mool Chandra v. Union Of India & Anr.

Civil Appeal No 8435-8436 of 2024 

Judgment dated 5th August, 2024