Back
2008 Supreme(SC) 2197
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Ranjeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana Others – Respondents
C.A. No.1491 Of 2006
Decided On : 30-06-2008
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Manu Mridul, Adv. Mr. Surya Kant,Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Manjit Singh, Addl.AG Mr. Harikesh Singh, Adv. Mr.T.V.George,Adv.
Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings without a satisfactory explanation can vitiate the enquiry.
Headnote:
The court did not refer to any specific acts or sections in this judgment.
Fact of the Case:
This is an appeal by a government servant regarding a punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding. The appellant was charged with disobedience towards officials, improper maintenance of stores, and misappropriation of goods. The appellant filed a suit challenging the validity of the show cause notice and the delay in the proceedings. During the pendency of the suit, the disciplinary authority passed a final order imposing penalties. The trial court declared the penalty order and show cause notice as invalid. The appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the state and dismissed the suit. The appellant's second appeal was rejected by the high court. The appellant challenges the high court's judgment in this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit based on the unexplained delay in issuing the charge-sheet and show cause notice, as well as the appellant's promotions during the alleged misconduct period. The Supreme Court held that inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings is a ground for quashing the enquiry unless satisfactorily explained by the employer. Since the charges did not require detailed investigation and there was no explanation for the delay, the entire enquiry was vitiated. The high court should have interfered as the appeal involved a substantial question of law regarding the delay in issuing the charge sheet. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the high court and appellate court and restored the trial court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings without a satisfactory explanation from the employer can vitiate the enquiry. The delay must cause serious prejudice to the employee for the enquiry to be quashed.
Result: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the high court and appellate court, and restored the trial court's judgment.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- civil law
ORDER
1. This is a Government servant's Appeal in regard to punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceedings.
2. The appellant was working as a clerk in the Haryana Health Department. On 6.9.1974, he was placed under suspension pending initiation of an enquiry. The suspension was revoked and he was reinstated on 19.11.1974. He was promoted as Assistant on 4.7.1978 after crossing efficiency bar. Nine years later, a charge-sheet was issued on 18.5.1983. The three charges were:
A) That the appellant was disobedient towards the officials/superiors;
B) That he had not maintained the stores of Malaria Wing properly;
C) That he has misappropriated BHC/DDT and spare parts of vehicles.
An enquiry was held into the said charges and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 1.1.1985. Again, there was a delay of about seven years. A show-cause notice was issued on 24.12.1992 with a copy of the report dated 1.1.1985 proposing to impose penalty for misconduct. The appellant submitted his explanation on 12.1.1993.
3. On 18.1.1993, the appellant filed a Suit for declaration that the show cause notice dated 24.12.1992 proposing to punish him for misconduct was invalid. He pointed out that there was a delay of about nine years in issuing the charge-sheet and a delay of seven years in issuing show cause notice after the enquiry and that in the meanwhile, he was promoted thrice. He also contended that the enquiry was in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. During the pendency of the said Suit, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order dated 23.12.1993 accepting the enquiry report and holding the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him and imposing two penalties. The first was reduction of rank from the post of Assistant to the lower post of Clerk. The second was a direction to recover Rs.1,34,377.18p. from the appellant, towards the loss said to have been caused by the appellant. The appellant amended the Plaint and challenged the order dated 23.12.1993 imposing penalties.
5. The Suit was decreed by the Trial Court on 30.4.2002 declaring that the order dated 23.12.1993 imposing the penalty was illegal and not binding upon the appellant and further declaring that he was entitled for regularisation of suspension period from 6.9.1974 to 19.11.1974. The Court also declared that the show cause notice dated 24.12.1992 was also null and void.
6. The State filed an Appeal in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad. The Appellate Court by its judgment dated 15.12.2004 allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Suit. The Appellate Court was of the view that the nine years' delay in issuing the charge sheet and a delay of seven years in issuing show cause notice after the enquiry report did not vitiate the enquiry. The Second Appeal filed by the appellant was rejected by the Punjab & Haryana High Court by judgment dated 16.1.2005 on the ground that no substantial questions of law arose for its consideration. The said judgment is under challenge in this Appeal by special leave.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had rightly decreed the Suit and the First Appellate Court ought not to have interfered with the same. He also submitted that when the Appellate Court interfered with the judgment of the Trial Court, the Second Appeal gave rise to several substantial questions of law, in particular whether the delay in initiation of the enquiry vitiated the enquiry.
8. We find that the Trial Court decreed the Suit primarily for three reasons: (a) There was an unexplained delay of nine years in issuing the charge-sheet; (b) There was an unexplained delay of seven years in issuing show cause notice after the enquiry report was submitted in January 1985; (c) The appellant was promoted thrice between the dates of alleged misconduct and imposition of punishment (which was about nineteen years). This Court has repeatedly held that inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings is a ground for quashing t
