BALAJINATH PADHI Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition seeks quashing of order dated 11.8.1999 (Annexure -6) made by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No. 165 of 1993 dismissing his application on the ground of delay.

(2.) THE petitioner while working as a clerk in Choudhury Bazar Post Office, Cuttack faced departmental proceeding for alleged unauthorised absence. The disciplinary authority -Senior Superintendent of Post Offices by order dated 7.10.1980 found him guilty of the charge and removed him from service with effect from 21.4.1979 (alleged date of desertion from duty). He filed an appeal before the Post Master General against the order of removal and the appellate authority by order dated 6.8.1983 dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Minister concerned of the Central Government in the year 1989. He waited for some time for decision, but as there was no response, he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by filing the aforesaid application (O.A. No. 165 of 1993).

(3.) THE Tribunal clearly fell into error in doubting its power to condone delay. No doubt Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act prescribes time for making an application to the Tribunal. Subsection (3) thereof however, clearly provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub -section (1) or sub -section (2), if the application is filed beyond time, the Tribunal can condone the delay if the applicant satisfies it that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within the prescribed period. The aforesaid provision (Sub -section (3) of Section (1) commences with a non -obstante clause. It leaves little doubt on the point that the Tribunal has the power to condone delay in making an application under Section 19 on sufficient cause being shown by the applicant.