Rajmohan V vs FINANCE on 2 November 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM Order Sheet Item no.: 2 M.A./895/2026 (ERNAKULAM) [ CONDONATION OF DELAY ] In O.A./402/2026 Court No.: 1 No of Adjournment: Order Dated: 02/11/2026 RAJMOHAN V Vs FINANCE For Applicant(s) Advocate : Mr. T. Sanjay For Respondent(s) Advocate : Mrs. Sreekala T.K Notes of The Registry Order of The Tribunal MA/895/2026 (for condonation of delay) This is an application filed by the original applicant seeking condonation of unspecified days delay in challenging the Annexure A-1 order dated 13.12.2007, by which a penalty was imposed on the applicant by one stage, for one year without cumulative effect from 01.01.2008. According to the applicant, when the order of penalty was imposed, he accepted the disciplinary penalty and did not challenge it. He did not file appeal against that also. After 18 years, the applicant has approached the Tribunal this year on the premise that by virtue of Annexure A-1, the penalty was to commence only from 01.01.2008 and not from the date of order. The premise on which it is set up is that, had the penalty commenced with effect from the date of order, on the next date of the order, he could have been considered for promotion in December, 2008. Respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit referring to various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court touching on the question of delay. The applicant has not mentioned the actual days/years of delay. It is an unexplained delay of 18 years. It seems that raising the grievance, the applicant filed a representation, which was rejected by Annexure A-4 order dated 08.07.2026. He has no explanation as to why he did not challenge Annexure A1 till now. He has no explanation as to what prevented him from challenging it earlier and what prompted him now to approach the Tribunal. Further, he has no case that any vacancy was filled up in December 2008. In his representation also, no explanation is forthcoming as to why the original order of penalty was not challenged by him though penalty commenced from 01.01.2008. In the absence of any valid explanation and his own admission in the MA that he has accepted the penalty imposed on him, acquiesced to it and woke up from his slumber after 18 years, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the applicant.

The MA is dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is rejected as time barred.

V RAMA MATHEW MEMBER (A) JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS MEMBER (J) A X ( steno 'c' )

Case No M.A./895/2026 Ernakulam Bench List In: Main causelist Item No. 2 Generated by Sherin A.X CAT Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench on 03/11/2026

2026.11.04 15:11:24+05'30' A X Sherin