02.09.2026 Item No.01 Court No.01 KCP WPCT 19 of 2022 Asit Kumar Mondal - Versus - Union of India & Ors. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Neogi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ananya Neogi Ms. Anushka Ghosh …. For the petitioner Ms. Anamika Pandey Ms. Rishika Pandey …. For the respondents The present writ petition has been preferred challenging an order dated 24th December, 2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA) being OA 350/01269/2015 which was preferred along with an application for condonation of delay being MA 350/00367/2015. The OA was preferred primarily challenging an order of dismissal from service passed by the disciplinary authority on 17th August, 1996 with a further prayer towards reinstatement along with all arrears of salaries and allowances. Records would reveal that the application for condonation of delay was preferred by the original applicant/petitioner herein, namely, Asit Kumar Mondal (in short, Asit) averring inter alia that all the necessary documents were handed over to one Shri Angshumoy Guha, the learned advocate and he was 2 authorized in the month of December, 2005 to file the OA. On 5th July, 2012, Asit was told that the OA was finally heard and reserved for judgment. Thereafter, he was informed that an order has been passed on 3rd April, 2014 directing the appellate authority to dispose of the statutory appeal preferred by Asit within 12 weeks. Upon being apprised of such fact, Asit approached the departmental authorities but he was informed that no such order dated 4th March, 2014 was communicated and as such, Asit met with the Registrar of the learned Tribunal with a copy of the order, when he was informed that no such order had been passed. Thereafter, on 6th June, 2014, Asit engaged another counsel and handed over the necessary papers on 10th July, 2015 and in the midst thereof, there occasioned a delay of about 8½ years towards filing the OA. Mr. Neogi, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that Asit was misled by his learned advocate. For such act of the learned advocate, Asit cannot be made to suffer. The delay which has occurred is not attributable to Asit. The learned Tribunal also did not arrive at any finding that Asit had acted in a mala fide manner and/or had attempted to mislead the Court. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception. The learned Tribunal did not take into 3 account the prejudice that would be caused to Asit due to the dismissal of the OA. Normally, better justice is likely to be done if both the sides are heard on merit. Drawing the attention of this Court to a back sheet annexed at page 144 of the writ petition, Mr. Neogi submits that the learned advocate misled Asit by endorsing false dates of hearing. Mr. Neogi argues that the finding of the enquiry officer did not tally with the alleged charge framed against Asit, who was an employee working as an unskilled labour. In spite of such admitted contradiction, Asit had been imposed an order of dismissal from service and as a consequence thereof, it had become impossible for him to survive with his family members. The punishment being a disproportionate one ought to have been interfered with by the learned Tribunal. Such argument, as advanced, was glossed over by the learned Tribunal and no finding was returned on the same. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court. Ms. Pandey, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, however, submits that Asit was unable to overcome the hurdle of limitation. The admitted delay of 8½ years towards filing the OA could not be satisfactorily explained by Asit. In the said conspectus, the learned Tribunal did not exercise 4 discretion in his favour and as such, there is no infirmity in the order impugned. She argues that the delay was attributable to Asit. He adopted dilatory tactics and made incorrect averments to the effect that he had been misled by his learned advocate. He miserably failed to establish his innocence. He was not diligent and in view of such conduct, the application for delay was rightly rejected by the learned Tribunal and accordingly, no interference is called for. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, in the disciplinary proceeding, the order of dismissal was passed by the disciplinary authority way back on 17th August, 1996 whereas the OA was preferred in the year 2015. From the averments made in the application for condonation of delay, no explanation is forthcoming as to why Asit approached a learned advocate about 11 years after such dismissal. When he was intimated by the authorities that they were unaware about the purported order dated 4th March, 2014 passed in the OA, Asit engaged another learned advocate and preferred the OA about a year thereafter. The said period of delay has also not been expired. It does not appear from the records that Asit kept regular contact 5 with the learned advocate and was diligent in the matter. The very existence of the order dated 4th March, 2014 in OA 301 of 2008 was doubted as to that effect a complaint was lodged by the learned Registrar of the learned Tribunal which was registered as Bhawanipore Police Station Case No.94 dated 17th March, 2015 under Section 120B/465/466/471 IPC. In the said conspectus, the innocence of Asit has been rightly doubted by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dealt with the factual issues in detail and arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error in the same warranting interference in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPCT 19 of 2022 is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)