ORDER : 1. Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 05.05.2015 made in Appeal No.3/2014 passed by the KAT vide Annexure-J and also the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Application No.3/200506 dated 08.01.2013 vide Annexure F. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a Secretary of Kalaghatta Agricultural Service Cooperative Bank Limited, Kalaghatta, since 1984. During 199394, he was working as incharge Secretary of Thyamagondlu Agricultural Service Cooperative Society Limited, Nelamangala, without there being any complaint against the petitioner. 4. The Cooperative Development Officer has filed a private complaint against the petitioner before the JMFC, Nelamangala in C.C.No.749/99 for the offences punishable under Sections 109(3) and (10) and 111 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, alleging that the petitioner has committed several offences in respect of the affairs of the Bank. After contest, the petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 24.09.2008. The Secretary, Common Cadre Committee, by order dated 15.07.1999 placed the petitioner under suspension, subject to holding of disciplinary proceedings and charges of misappropriation as well as not handing over charge. By the order dated 18.10.2001, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Against the said order, a writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.26043/2002, which was allowed by the Bench of this Court and set aside the termination order and held that the charges leveled against the petitioner are vague and ordered for reinstatement. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the 1st respondent initiated the surcharge proceedings in Surcharge Application No.3/200506 before the 2nd respondent on 20.07.2004 for recovery of a sum of Rs.7,63,162/with interest at 18% p.a. on the ground that in the report submitted by the Auditor, the said amount was found due for the period from 01.04.1998 to 15.07.1999. 5. Against the attachment warrant pending before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent proceeded with an enquiry and passed an order on 08.01.2013 for recovery of the said amount with interest. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in an appeal No.3/2014 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Against the attachment warrant pending before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent proceeded with an enquiry and passed an order on 08.01.2013 for recovery of the said amount with interest. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in an appeal No.3/2014 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The KAT without passing any orders on the application for delay, proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the appeal both on the ground of delay as well as on merits confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 08.01.2013. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri.S.V.Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the KAT rejecting the appeal while considering the application for condonation of delay on merits is impermissible. He further contended that the KAT ought to have consider the application for condonation of delay at the first instance. If the delay is condoned, then only they can proceed on merits. The KAT cannot decide the application of delay and appeal on merits simultaneously. He would further contended that the 2nd respondent having noticed that the criminal complaint filed, it has failed to prove the offences alleged against the petitioner. Hence, the order of termination was set aside and directed for reinstatement, but the same was not complied. Therefore, he would submit that the order passed by the KAT dismissing the I.A. along with the main appeal is impermissible in law. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the dictum of this Court in the case of Sadashiv vs. Rajeshwari and Others reported in 2016 (5) KCCR 1415 and submits that this Court has taken a view “that the KAT ought to have first decide the application for condonation of delay. If it is satisfied to condone the delay, then decide the case on merits. While considering the application for delay, the lower appellate court has no jurisdiction to decide the case on merits. The method often adopted by the Courts below unnecessarily drag the parties from Court to Court and delayed the proceedings. If it is satisfied to condone the delay, then decide the case on merits. While considering the application for delay, the lower appellate court has no jurisdiction to decide the case on merits. The method often adopted by the Courts below unnecessarily drag the parties from Court to Court and delayed the proceedings. Therefore, it was directed that the lower courts should consider the application for condonation of delay first and on such consideration, if sufficient reasons has not assigned by the party for condonation of delay, then lower court of appellate court can proceed on merits”. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order and contended that though the KAT proceeded to pass the order considering the I.A. for condonation of delay along with the main appeal, the fact remains that the petitioner is due to a sum of Rs.7,63,162.84/. Therefore, they sought to dismiss the writ petition by justifying the impugned order. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute that certain proceedings are initiated against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the KAT. While, filing the appeal, there was delay of 296 days. The KAT should have considered first the application for condonation of delay. If the KAT satisfied on condonation of delay, then it should have proceeded on merits. The Tribunal cannot proceed simultaneously on the application as well as on the merits of the case. If the application for delay is not considered and delay is not condoned, the KAT has no jurisdiction to proceed with the appeal on merits. On that short ground alone, the matter requires reconsideration by the KAT. 10. In view of the above, the order dated 05.05.2015 passed by the KAT, Bangalore, in Appeal No.3/2014 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to reconsider and decide the application for condonation of delay first and then decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months from today. Consequently, the order dated 26.11.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent vide AnnexureK is also quashed. In view of the disposal of writ petition, I.A.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed. Writ petition is disposed off accordingly.