1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6763 OF 2010 Yashwant s/o Pralhad Sapkale Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.Vijay Sharma, advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATE : 20 th September, 2010. P.C.: 1 Application tendered by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of about two and half years in approaching the appellate forum has been turned down by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik, in view of the order passed on 18.08.2009. 2 Petitioner herein was appointed as Peon in the year 1986. He was served with the show cause notice for the purposes of holding departmental enquiry in the year 2005 and was also issued a charge sheet on 11.10.2005. After holding detailed enquiry, services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the Appointing Authority with effect from 08.08.2006. The order passed by the Appointing Authority, directing termination of 2 services, was subjected to appeal presented to the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. The application tendered along with the appeal, seeking condonation of delay, has been turned down by the appellate authority. 3 I have perused the application as well as impugned order. It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that during intervening period, petitioner was not in psychologically stable state of mind. The application, however, is cryptic, so also, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority is a one line order. 4 In these circumstances, ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to present detailed application making out a case for condoning the delay. Petitioner is expected to show a convincing reason for granting indulgence. If the petitioner presents such an application within a period of four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall consider same after extending an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 5 With these observations, as the petition does not call for any interference, same stands disposed of. (R.M.BORDE) JUDGE ******* adb/wp676310