Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 755
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, JJ.
K. Raj Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India And Others - Respondents
WP.CT/74/2023
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi
Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary action and negligible gravity of charges can lead to the setting aside of charge memorandums.
Headnote:
DELAY - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 20 - [1964, Rule 20] - The court found that the delay of 10 years in initiating disciplinary action was wholly unexplained and the gravity of the charges was negligible. The charges brought against the petitioner were found to be incidental to the primary enquiry against another officer, and the court set aside the charge memorandum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a government servant, sought to set aside a memorandum of charge issued against them, citing inordinate delay and negligible gravity of the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay of 10 years in initiating disciplinary action was wholly unexplained and the gravity of the charges was negligible. The charges brought against the petitioner were found to be incidental to the primary enquiry against another officer, and the court set aside the charge memorandum.
Issues: Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary action, gravity of the charges, relevance of Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay of 10 years in initiating disciplinary action was wholly unexplained and the gravity of the charges was negligible, leading the court to set aside the charge memorandum.
Final Decision: The court set aside the charge memorandum dated 5/9th June, 2023 against the petitioner and granted them all consequential reliefs.
JUDGMENT :
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.
1. The petitioner prays for setting aside of a judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, on 28th September, 2023 and for setting aside of a memorandum of charge dated 5th/9th June, 2023 issued by the respondent No. 3 / the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
2. The petitioner prayed for setting aside of the memorandum of charge before the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner was not able to make out a case for interference.
3. The undisputed facts which are relevant for our consideration are as follows :
4. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the Chief Engineer, Andaman Public Works Department (APWD) by an order dated 2nd March, 1984. The petitioner’s appointment was made regular on 31st July, 1985. The petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and was assigned the duty of the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) in 2020. A Show Cause Notice along with an enquiry report was issued on 17th August, 2022 to the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner had failed to check and attest the entries made in the relevant registers during 1st August, 2013 – 9h October, 2019, when the petitioner was posted under the Construction Division-III, Prathrapur. The petitioner replied to the Show Cause Notice on 25th August, 2022 and submitted the same to the respondent No. 6/Chief Engineer, APWD. The memorandum of charge was thereafter issued on 5th/9th June, 2023 on the same allegations as in the Show Cause Notice.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues on the inordinate delay in the initiation of charges despite are the material being available with the respondents. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not the subject matter of enquiry but another officer of the APWD. Counsel submits that the alleged charges brought against the petitioner did not lead to any loss caused to the Administration and further that the Memorandum was issued eleven days before the petitioner was due for retire from service. Counsel submits that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the relevant facts and decided the matter mechanically without considering the particular facts of the case.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents urges that the petitioner does not have any cause of action to approach the Court since the Disciplinary Authority did not come to any finding on the alleged guilt or any commission of offence by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the Court cannot interfere with the memorandum of charge in the absence of any finding given by the Disciplinary Authority pursuant to such Memorandum.
7. The enquiry report of 21st March, 2022 forms the source of the Show Cause Notice. The enquiry report admittedly led to the Show Cause Notice being issued to the petitioner on 17th August, 2022. The relevant part of the enquiry report would show that “Allegation No. 27” concerning the petitioner was to do with the period between 1st August, 2013 – 9th October, 2019. The petitioner replied to the Show Cause Notice on 25th August, 2022. The memorandum of charge was however, issued on 5th/9th June, 2023.
8. Apart from the intervening delay between the enquiry report, issuance of Show Cause Notice and the memorandum of charges, which is 15 months from the enquiry report to the Memorandum, there is also a palpable delay between the period of the alleged misconduct to the issuance of the memorandum of charges. The enquiry report mentions 1st August, 2013 – 9th October, 2019 as the period during which the petitioner, as the Assistant Engineer posted at Humfrygunj, had committed the alleged offence. Hence, the second palpable delay is from August, 2013 to March, 2022, i.e. 9 years from the alleged commission of offence till the enquiry report. The period of delay would be even greater if the memorandum of charge is taken into
