Important point
Protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should be avoided not only in the interest of Government employee but in public interest and also in interest of inspiring confidence in minds of Government employees.

Headnote:Service Law—Disciplinary action initiated against appellant who was working as Superintending Engineer in Tamil Nadu Housing Board—Charge-memo was issued in 2000 for irregularity in issuing a sale deed in 1990 in favour of a person who was an employee of Housing Board—Writ petition to quash proceedings on ground of inordinate delay of 10 years with no explanation for delay—High Court dismissed writ—Appeal—Explanation offered in counter affidavit that irregularity came to light in audit report for second half of 1994-95 could not stand scrutiny in view of Sections 118 and 119 of Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act—Allowing respondent to proceed with departmental proceedings at this distance of time would be prejudicial to appellant and proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Held : In the instant case the audit report was ultimately released in the 1994-1995. The explanation offered for the delay in finalising the audit account cannot stand scrutiny in view of the above two provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 17. It is now stated that the appellant has retired from service. There is also no acceptable explanation on the side of the respondent explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned Senior counsel is appearing for the respondent. His submission that the period from the date of commission of the irregularities by the appellant to the date on which it came to the knowledge of the Housing Board cannot be reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any delay on the part of the Board in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant has no merit and force. The stand now taken by the respondent in this Court in the counter affidavit is not convincing and is only an afterthought to give some explanation for the delay. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. (Paras 15 and 16)

Judgement Key Points

The ratio decidendi of the case is that protracted disciplinary proceedings against a government employee, especially when there is an inordinate delay with no satisfactory explanation, are to be avoided in the interest of the employee, public interest, and maintaining confidence in the administrative system. The Court emphasized that initiating disciplinary action after a significant delay, particularly when the delay is unexplained, causes prejudice to the employee and undermines the principles of fair administrative justice. Consequently, proceedings that are unduly delayed and lack proper justification should be quashed to prevent undue mental suffering and to uphold the integrity of administrative processes.

Order

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the common order passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 297 and 331 of 2001 and Writ Petition No. 7854/2001 filed by the appellant herein. Certain disciplinary actions were initiated against the appellant herein who was working as Superintending Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. A charge memo was issued on 8.6.2000. The appellant preferred a writ petition to call for the records, to quash the charge memo by the respondent and to forebear the respondent from in any manner proceeding with the charge memo against the appellant. Certain other consequential prayers have also been made in regard to the disbursement of monetary benefits, etc.

3. Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the charge memo had been issued in the year 2000 for the irregularity in issuing a sale deed in 1990 to one Mr. A.N. Beemaiah who was an employee of the Housing Board and was to superannuate shortly. Mr. Prabhakar also submitted that though the records were very much available with the respondent, no action has been taken against the appellant since 1990 for about 10 years; that no explanation whatsoever was offered by the Housing Board for the inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary action against the appellant. Mr. Prabhakar placed strong reliance on the following two decisions of this Court in (i) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and Another reported in 1990 Supp. SCC 738 and (ii) State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 and submitted that the High Court did not even consider any of these judgments, which were specifically referred in the writ petition.

4. In the first case [1990 Supp. SCC 738], an O.A. was filed by the officer concerned against initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings and issue of charge-sheet on April, 22, 1987 in respect of certain incidents that happened in 1975-76 when the said officer was posted as Commandant 14th Battalion, SAF Gwalior. The Tribunal quashed the charge memo and the departmental enquiry on the ground of inordinate delay of over 12 years in the initiation of the departmental proceedings with reference to an incident that took place in 1975-76.

5. The appeal against the said order was filed in this Court on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits.

6. This Court rejected the contention of the learned counsel. While dismissing the appeal this Court observed as follows:-

“The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal’s orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.”

7. In the second case [(1998) 4 SCC 154], the respondent was appointed as Assistant Director of Town Planning in the year 1976. A report dated 7.11.1987 was sent by the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to the Secretary to the Government, Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, about the irregularities in devitations and unauthorized constructions in multi storied complexes in the twin cities of Hyder

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2005 Supreme(SC) 1001

Important pointProtracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should be avoided not only in the interest of Government employee but in public interest and also in interest of inspiring confidence in minds of Government employees.

Cases Referred (1)

Important point
Protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should be avoided not only in the interest of Government employee but in public interest and also in interest of inspiring confidence in minds of Government employees.