AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER:- MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER[A]
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present O.A. has remained at the stage of notice hearing since January, 2026. The matter was first taken up on 11.02.2026. Thereafter, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has remained irregular in pursuing the matter. Consequently, on 17.07.2026, notice was directed to be issued to the applicant, which was duly served upon the applicant on 28.07.2026. Even today, learned counsel for the applicant seeks an adjournment for filing a supplementary affidavit. Having regard to the history of the proceedings, the prayer for adjournment is declined.
I have perused the pleadings and the material available on record. The present O.A. has been instituted challenging the order dated 02.12.2019, whereby the penalty of dismissal was imposed upon the applicant. The O.A. has thus been instituted after an inordinate delay of approximately seven years.
The applicant has filed M.A. No. 70/2026 seeking condonation of the aforesaid delay. However, on a perusal of the averments made in the said M.A., I find that no sufficient, satisfactory or cogent explanation has been furnished for the extraordinary delay in approaching this Tribunal.
It is well settled that an applicant seeking condonation of an inordinate delay is required to satisfactorily explain the delay and demonstrate sufficient cause for not approaching the Court/Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation. In the present case, the applicant has failed to discharge that burden.
In the circumstances, M.A. No. 70/2026 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the O.A., having been filed after an inordinate delay and being barred by limitation, is also dismissed as barred by limitation.
No order as to costs.