Back
1998 Supreme(Del) 419
High Court Of Delhi
D.P.BAMBAH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 2943 of 1996
Decided On : 05/22/1998
G.D.GUPTA, PRAMOD GUPTA, S.S.SABHARWAL, VINAY SABHARWAL
Disciplinary action against employees should be taken promptly and undue delay in initiating disciplinary action is unfair to the employee and may prejudice their defense.
Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - DELAY IN INITIATING DISCIPLINARY ACTION - CHARGESHEET ISSUED AFTER 12 YEARS - DELAY NOT EXPLAINED - CHARGESHEET QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), was issued a charge-sheet on 25.7.1996 for alleged irregularities committed in 1984. The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet on the ground of delay, arguing that the DDA had failed to take action against him for over 12 years despite having received a report from the Central Technical Examiner (CTE) in December 1984.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the DDA had not provided any explanation for the delay in issuing the charge-sheet and that the delay was not justified. The court noted that the charges against the petitioner were not of such a serious nature that they required a delay of 12 years to investigate.
Issues: Whether the delay in issuing the charge-sheet was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in issuing the charge-sheet was not justified and that the charge-sheet should be quashed. The court relied on the following principles: * Disciplinary action against employees should be taken promptly. * Undue delay in initiating disciplinary action is unfair to the employee and may prejudice their defense. * The nature of the charges and the reasons for the delay should be considered when determining whether the delay is justified.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the charge-sheet. The court directed the DDA to open the sealed cover placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 26.7.1996 and issue orders as per the recommendations of the DPC.
( 1 ) THE petitioner joined the Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) as Junior Engineer. He was promoted as Asistant Engineer with effect from February, 1977. He was further promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on current duty charge with effect from 4. 7. 1983. With effect from February, 1986 he was regularised in the post of Executive Engineer.
( 2 ) THE next higher post is Superintending Engineer. For the purpose of being considered for the post of Superintending Engineer, the Executive Engineer should have served in that capacity for a period of seven years. The Departmental Promotion Committee was H) be held on 26. 7. 1996. The petitioner was issued with the charge-sheet on 25. 7. 1996. On 2. 8. 1996 the petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the issue of charge-sheet on the ground of delay.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner the DDA with a view to promoting Mr. Sajjan, this method had been adopted. It was only Mr. Sajjan who was instrumental in charge-sheet being issued against the petitioner.
( 4 ) THE (Central Technical Examiner) C. T. E. had made inspection of the works in November, 1984. In the charge-sheetirregularities were mentioned with reference to the payment made to the Contractor resulting in some temporary benefits to the contractor. A Memorandum was issued on 21. 3. 1994, after 10 years of the date of inspection which was in November, 1984 to the petitioner. The petitioner asked for inspection of certain relevant documents vide letter dated 4. 4. 1994. The petitioner filed a reply on 14. 6. 1994 explaining that no action could be taken against him. Nothing was done by the respondents after receiving the said reply from the petitioner and all of sudden a charge-sheet dated 25. 7. 1996 was issued to the petitioner.
( 5 ) ACCORDING to the DDA the charges involved technical aspect of the construction and reports from the technical personnel were required. The matter was under preliminary investigation by the Director of Vigilance, Technical Examiner (Vigilance) and also Central Vigilance Commission. It is stated that the works was inspected by C. T. E in November, 1984 and the matter was REFERRED TO Vigilance in December, 1984 after obtaining comments/clarification from C. T. E. , preliminary investigation was completed in April, 1993 and the Memo was issued to the petitioner in 1994. The Articles of charges given in the charge-sheet are as follows:
ARTICLE-1 That the said Shri D. P. Bambah while working as E. E. /h. D.-30 was the incharge of the works of c/o 96-3 bedrooms (type-ill) 96 -2 bed room (typeii) and 144 scooter garages at Janakpuri, Block-B i/c internal development of land, executed vide agreement No. 41 /ee/hd-7/81-82. That the said Sh. D. P. Bambah had allowed the rate for payment of secured advance on bricks and brick tiles higher than the rate payable which resulted into temporary over payment to the tune of about Rs. 1,68,643. 00.
ARTICLE-2 That the said Sh. D. P. Bambah in the capacity as stated in Article-1 above had made the payment against agreement items No-5. 1,11. 1 and 11. 2atpartrates instead of making payment as secured advance for the material brought at site. This act resulted into temporary over payment to the tune of about Rs. l,89,727. 00.
ARTICLE-111 That the said Shri D. P. Bambah while working in the capacity as stated in Article-1 above had made the payment against agreement item No. 6. 7 for providing and fixing steel windows but the windows (fixed or not fixed) were not brought at site by the agency. This resulted into over payment to the tune of about Rs. 50,987. 00.
ARTICLE-4 That the said Sh. D. P. Bambah while working in the capacity as stated in Article-1 above had made the payment against agreement item No. 6. 7 for providing and fixing steel windows at part rate. The part rate released was mere because glass panes were not brought at site by the agency. This resulted into over payment to the tune of about Rs. 34543. 00.
ARTIC
