The court emphasized that delay in disciplinary proceedings must be assessed on its own facts and that the delay should result in prejudice to the employee to warrant interference with the disciplinary jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

D.Y. Chandrachud, J. - This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 1 May 2012. While allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent raising a challenge to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [1] , the High Court came to the conclusion that (i) there was a violation of the principles of natural justice in that the Appellants failed to provide relevant documents to the Respondent during the course of the departmental inquiry; and (ii) the inquiry was vitiated by delay, following an earlier order of remand of the Tribunal. On these two counts, the High Court interfered with the punishment of dismissal imposed on the Respondent and directed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits. The Union of India is in appeal.

[1] "Tribunal"

2. On 13 December 1978, the Respondent was appointed as a Postal Assistant in the Head Post Office at Allahabad. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 31 August 1988. There were four articles of charge pertaining to the conduct of the Respondent during the period from 15 July 1985 until 10 February 1986 when he was functioning as a Miscellaneous P.A. at the Allahabad Head Office.

3. The charge of misconduct relates to the Appellant authorising payments of commission under the National Savings Certificate Scheme to agents who were found to be fake. Article-I of the charges was in the following terms:

Shri Udai Bhan Singh while working as Misc. Asstt. Allahabad HO during the period from 15.07.1985 to 10.02.1986 did not verify the commission bills submitted by NSC Agents properly and did not make entries of payment in ledger of NS Agents, He also did not watch the following particularised irregular and forged NSC commission bills to fake agents. He also managed to prepare money receipts on the number of fake agents and managed their payment. This resulted fraudulent payments of NS commission to the tune of Rs. 6,65,693.60 to the following fake agents

The names of 79 fake agents to whom fraudulent payments of commission were allegedly made were thereafter elucidated. Article II of the charges was in the following terms:

That the said Shri Udai Bhan Singh while functioning as Misc. PA Allahabad HO during the period from 15.07.1985 to 10.02.1988 managed to prepare three following particularized money paid receipts in duplicate and managed their payment at Allahabad HO as well as at Allahabad City PO on the following date by using the two copy of each.

A tabulated chart below the charge contained details. Article III was as follows:

That the said Shri Udai Bhan Singh while functioning as Misc. Asstt. Allahabad RO during the period from 15.07.1985 to 10.02.1986 did not submit prepare Schedule of commission paid to authorised agents for sale of NSCs and did not submit the Schedule with the voucher and bills to the Audit office though Account branch of Allahabad HO and did not tally the amount of NS commission with those of HO summary and HO cash book in r/o commission paid to the fake authorized NS Agents shown in Article No. 1 and put the department into a loss of Rs. 6,65,63.60. By his above acts he contravened the provisions of Rule 543(10) (b) of P & T Man. Vol. VI Part II.

4. An inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charges. The inquiry officer submitted a report dated 18 July 1990. The inquiry officer found that the first charge was proved to the following extent:

Shri Udai Bhan Singh is not fully proved but it is proved to the extent that he had helped to put in loss to the department by violating the Rules for tallying the account putting his initial in token of checking against every payment of commission bill, submission of vouchers and Schedule to audit office even though he was fully aware with the rules.

The second head of charge was held to be partially proved while the third charge was held to be proved.

5. Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority awarded a penal