Prajakta d/o Prashant Wade vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

By way of MA No. 246/2026, the applicant seeks condonation of delay in filing the accompanying OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

In the OA, the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2021 (Annexure A-1), whereby the Disciplinary Authority, by way of punishment, compulsorily retired the Central Administrative Tribunal^{deceased father of the applicant. In the disciplinary} proceedings, the allegation against the deceased employee was unauthorized absence during the COVID-19 period. The order of the Disciplinary Authority was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 17.09.2021 (Annexure A-2).

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during his lifetime, the deceased father of the applicant had preferred a revision petition, which was sent by post on 02.11.2021; however, till date, the same has not been decided by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of the claim for condonation of delay, submits that the applicant has a very strong prima facie case in her favour qua the reliefs sought by way of the accompanying OA. The applicant moved an application for appointment on compassionate grounds on 27.03.2024. At that time, the applicant was advised that she may not succeed in getting her claim for compassionate appointment unless the orders of penalty are Central Administrative Tribunal^{set aside by the competent authority amongst the} respondents and/or by a competent court of law. On receipt of such advice, the applicant gathered all the relevant documents relating to the impugned disciplinary proceedings and the penalty orders and, thus, filed the present MA along with the accompanying OA.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the deceased left behind an unmarried, school-going daughter, i.e. the applicant, and his widow. After the unfortunate demise of the deceased employee, the family was shattered financially as well as emotionally. He submits that there has been no wilful or deliberate delay, nor was the applicant likely to derive any undue benefit by causing delay in the matter, nor has any such undue benefit so far been derived by the applicant and in the facts and circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the MA deserves to be allowed and the delay caused in filing of the OA deserves to be condoned.

The claim of the applicant in the present MA has been disputed and denied by the respondents. However, the Central Administrative Tribunal^{pendency of the revision petition till date and the personal} difficulties of the applicant and her family, which are precisely noted hereinabove, have not been denied.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the MA is allowed. The delay in filing the OA is condoned. Registry is directed to assign an appropriate number to the accompanying OA.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the OA is taken up for consideration and adjudication.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned disciplinary order dated 06.05.2021 and appellate order dated 13.09.2021, Annexures A-1 and A-2 respectively, are not sustainable in law on various grounds, including the grounds pleaded in the OA. He submits that the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering and deciding the pending revision petition is also not Central Administrative Tribunal^{sustainable in law.}

Issue notice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on advance service accepts notice.

With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties and without going into the merits of the present case, the OA is disposed of at this very stage with the following directions:

The OA and MA both stand disposed of in the above terms. No costs.