The appellant challenged the High Court of Delhi's order dated 14.09.2023, which dismissed his Writ Petition and Review Petition. The case involves disciplinary actions taken against the appellant, a member of the Indian Statistical Services, for allegedly deserting his family. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed his application for condonation of delay in challenging the penalty imposed on him. The Delhi High Court affirmed this decision. The appellant contended that the delay was due to his counsel's mistake. The Supreme Court, considering the circumstances, set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to provide the appellant with all consequential benefits.

Brief Background

5. Appellant's Career:

   • Joined Indian Statistical Services in 1982.
   • Promoted as Deputy Director (STS) in 1987 and as Joint Director (JAG) in 1992 (ad hoc), regularized in 1993.
   • Reverted in 1996 and promoted again in 2005.

6. Suspension and Charges:

   • Suspended on 13.10.1997.
   • Charged under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for deserting family and living with another woman.

7. Inquiry and Dismissal:

   • Inquiry continued despite wife's affidavit withdrawing her complaint.
   • Inquiry officer found appellant guilty of desertion but not of living with another woman.
   • Appellant dismissed from service on 17.04.2000.

8. Tribunal's First Decision:

   • CAT quashed dismissal, finding it disproportionate, and remitted the case to the disciplinary authority.

9. Reinstatement and Penalty:

   • Appellant reinstated on 09.04.2003.
   • Minor penalty imposed: stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect.

10. Representations and Retirement:

    • Appellant sought promotion and financial benefits.
    • Retired on 31.10.2016.

11. Tribunal's Second Decision:

    • Tribunal dismissed appellant's application for condonation of delay in challenging the penalty.

12. High Court's Decision:

    • Delhi High Court dismissed appellant's writ petition, affirming the CAT's decision.

Contentions of Learned Advocates

13. Appellant's Argument:

    • High Court erred by addressing merits without providing opportunity to appellant.
    • Delay due to counsel's mistake.
    • Sufficient cause for delay should be liberally construed.

14. Respondents' Argument:

    • Representations already examined and rejected.
    • O.A. No.3034 of 2018 withdrawn by appellant.

Discussion and Findings

17. Inquiry Officer's Findings:

    • Wife withdrew complaint; she did not appear as a witness.
    • Inquiry officer's findings on desertion not supported by evidence.

18. Appellant's Representations:

    • Representations for complete exoneration and promotion were rejected.

19. Withdrawal of O.A. No.3034 of 2018:

    • Appellant claimed withdrawal was unauthorized.

20. Delay in Filing O.A. No.2066 of 2020:

    • Tribunal erred in not condoning delay.

21. High Court's Error:

    • High Court erred by addressing merits while considering delay.

22. Principles for Condonation of Delay:

    • Length of delay less important than cause for delay.
    • Tribunal and High Court failed to adopt a liberal approach.

23. Sufficient Cause for Delay:

    • Delay explained by appellant's lack of knowledge about withdrawal.

24. Final Decision:

    • Supreme Court set aside impugned orders.
    • Directed respondents to provide consequential benefits within three months.