Appeal dismissed due to delay, emphasizing review committee's role. Condonation plea rejected, stay application dismissed.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's plea for condonation of a 300-day delay in filing the appeal, citing unsatisfactory reasons provided by the department and emphasizing the review committee's significant role in the delay. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred, leading to the automatic dismissal of the stay application. The Tribunal's decision was based on the failure to justify the delay adequately, resulting in the rejection of both applications and concluding the matter before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal and stay of operation of impugned order.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant sought condonation of a 300-day delay in filing the appeal due to transfer of officers and pressure of work. The chronology of events presented revealed delays by the review committee in approving the appeal proposal and signing the authorization letter. The department's sole reason for delay was officer transfers, but the review committee's significant delays were not adequately explained. The appellant's plea for equitable relief in public interest was rejected as the officer did not act in public interest. Citing case law, the respondent opposed the application, referring to instances where delays were not condoned due to lack of satisfactory explanations. The Tribunal found the department's reasons unsatisfactory, highlighting the review committee's substantial role in the delay, leading to the rejection of the condonation application and dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

Stay of Operation of Impugned Order:
The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred also led to the dismissal of the stay application. The appellant's failure to justify the delay in filing the appeal resulted in the rejection of both applications. The stay application was not considered separately but was dismissed along with the appeal due to the time-barred nature of the case. The Tribunal's decision was based on the unsatisfactory reasons provided by the appellant for the delay, emphasizing the review committee's responsibility in the delay rather than solely attributing it to officer transfers. The rejection of the condonation application automatically led to the dismissal of the appeal and the stay application, concluding the matter before the Tribunal.

---