P.K. Musahary, J:- Heard Mr. B.L. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, for the State respondents and Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner who was working as UDC-cum-Cashier in the O/o Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Naharlagun, under the Directorate of Health Services, Govern­ment of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun. Af­ter completion of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 23.03.2006. On the basis of the said report, the Disciplinary Au­thority dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 06.06.2007. The petitioner preferred a Departmental Appeal before the Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Health & Family Welfare, Itanagar, on 01.10.2007, along with an application for con­donation of delay of 68 days in filing the said appeal. The petitioner explained the afore­said delay by furnishing a Medical Certificate dated 15.09.2007 obtained from the Deputy Superintendent, Nowboicha 30 Bedded Rural Hospital, North Lakhimpur, Assam, wherein it was certified that the petitioner was under treatment for an ailment viz. Cysticircosis of the brain w.e.f. 10.12.2006 to 15.09.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ-peti­tion). 3. The Appellate Authority considered the aforesaid Medical Certificate and the expla­nation given by the writ-petitioner but the said Authority was not satisfied with the same. The Appellate Authority, thereafter, himself, called for some report from the Chief Medical Of­ficer, General Hospital, Naharlagun and the Medical Superintendent of General Hospital, Naharlagun, vide his letter dated 22.07.2008, informed the Commissioner, Health & Fam­ily Welfare, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, that the treatment for the aforesaid ailment is available at General Hos­pital, Naharlagun, and that the patient could easily travel from North Lakhimpur to Naharlagun, byroad, in a 4-wheeler with an escort. 4. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the peti­tioner, submits that the Appellate Authority is to consider the condonation of delay on the basis of materials furnished by the petitioner and not by making any enquiry by himself as has been done by him and as such, the re­fusal to condone the delay is unwarranted, arbitrary and unreasonable and as such, the impugned order dated 24.07.2008, is liable to be set aside and quashed. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Gov­ernment Advocate, on the other hand, sub­mits that the Appellate Authority has the power to call for any document or record from the concerned authorities to find-out whether the reason for not being able to file the depart­mental appeal, in time, is bonafide and ac­ceptable and on having obtained the required information from the Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Naharlagun, the Appellate Authority has rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. The learned Senior Government Advocate further submits that this Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not pass any order interfering with the afore­said impugned order dated 24.07.2008 and any order passed in this regard, by this Court, would amount to substituting the aforesaid order of the Appellate A authority. 6. I have considered 1 :he rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I have also carefully gone through the Medical Certificate dated 15.09.2007 (Annexure-3) furnished by the writ-petitioner for condonation of delay. In the aforesaid cer­tificate, as stated earlier, it was certified that the petitioner was under treatment of Dr. L.N. Pagag, Deputy Superintendent, Nowboicha 30 Bedded Rural Hospital, North Lakhimpur, Assam, w.e.f. 10.12.2006 to 15.09.2007. The petitioner filed the appeal before the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, on 01.10.2007. If it is so, then the petitioner had a time of 15 days from 16.09.2007 to 01.10.2007 to file such appeal but no expla­nation has been made by the petitioner re­garding those extra 15 days. 7. The general principal of law of Limita­tion is that the delay must be explained prop­erly and to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. In the present case, the principle of law of Limitation may not be applicable strictly but it is expected that the petitioner, for the purpose of showing his bonafide in­tention/reason, should have given the expla­nation justifying the aforesaid period of 15 days. Considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is required to explain the delay of aforesaid 15 days by furnishing more and better par­ticulars, for condoning the delay in question by the authorities concerned. 8. It is also seen that the respondent Ap­pellate Authority viz. Considering this aspect of the matter, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is required to explain the delay of aforesaid 15 days by furnishing more and better par­ticulars, for condoning the delay in question by the authorities concerned. 8. It is also seen that the respondent Ap­pellate Authority viz. Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, did not indicate in the im­pugned order dated 24.07.2008 that the writ -petitioner is required to explain the afore­said period of extra 15 days nor was any opportunity given to the petitioner to furnish more and better particulars. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 24.07.2008, is liable to be quashed and the same is accordingly set aside and quashed. However, the petitioner shall file a fresh representation/petition within a period of 10 days from today before the Appellate Authority viz. Secretary, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, for condoning the delay of the aforesaid 15 days by furnishing necessary docu­ments/particulars which maybe considered and disposed of by a speaking order by the said Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment & Order along with the fresh peti­tion/representation from the petitioner. 10. Regarding the occupation of the quar­ter in question, the petitioner shall not be dis­turbed till disposal of the fresh representa­tion/petition to be filed by the writ petitioner, aforesaid. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the pe­tition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost.