Condonation of delay requires bona fide, fully explained reasons; unexplained administrative lapses defeat departmental appeals.

Condonation of an 823-day delay failed because the explanation did not cover the entire period and lacked bona fide diligence. The departmental plea of no knowledge of the impugned order was rejected since counsel had appeared before the Tribunal, and several long, unexplained gaps in the file movement showed a casual administrative approach. The delay application was dismissed, and the appeal fell with it. The governing principle stated is that condonation requires a fully and reasonably explained delay supported by bona fide conduct; a vague or unexplained lapse is insufficient even for a departmental appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay of 823 days in filing the appeal.

Analysis: The explanation for the delay was found unsatisfactory. The record showed that counsel for the department had appeared before the Tribunal, so the plea of lack of knowledge of the impugned order was not credible. Even otherwise, the condonation application left unexplained several long gaps spanning months, showing a casual and lackadaisical approach in processing the file. The explanation did not establish bona fide and reasonable diligence.

Conclusion: No sufficient cause was made out for condonation of delay of 823 days. The delay application was dismissed and, consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a bona fide and reasonably explained account of the entire period of delay, and a casual or unexplained administrative lapse is insufficient even for a departmental appeal.

---