Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA, CHANDER SHEKHAR, JJ.
RAJESH BABU - Petitioner
Versus
MINISTRY OF INFROMATION & BROADCASTING & ORS. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 2295 of 2014
Decided On : 26-05-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Apurb Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Radhalakshmi R. & Mr. Pratishth Kaushal, Advocates.
Delay in disciplinary proceedings does not warrant quashing unless it causes irretrievable prejudice. The gravity of the charges and the nature of the charge must be considered in assessing the impact of the delay.
Headnote:
Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings - Financial Irregularities - CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - State of A.P. v. N. Radha Krishan, 1998 (4) SCC 154 - P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, TN Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 - State of M.P. v. Bani Singh & Anr., 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 - Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 - Union of India v. B.A. Dhayalan, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3275 - Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Appala Swamy, 2007 (3) SCALE 1
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Group 'A' officer, was issued a memorandum of charges for financial irregularities dating back to 2002-2005. The petitioner sought relevant documents to respond to the charges, but faced delays and non-compliance from the respondents. The petitioner approached the Tribunal, contending that the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings caused prejudice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a considerable delay in initiating the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. However, it held that delay alone is not a ground for quashing disciplinary proceedings unless it causes irretrievable prejudice. The court emphasized the gravity of the charges and the need to consider the nature of the charge and its complexity in assessing the impact of the delay. The court also clarified that the petitioner could raise the ground of prejudice in the disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner's request for relevant documents, and the impact of the delay on the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that delay in disciplinary proceedings does not warrant quashing unless it causes irretrievable prejudice. It emphasized the need to consider the gravity of the charges and the nature of the charge in assessing the impact of the delay. The court also clarified the petitioner's right to raise the ground of prejudice in the disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no interference in the ongoing departmental proceedings was warranted at that stage. It clarified that the petitioner could raise the ground of prejudice in the disciplinary proceedings.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
Rajesh Babu, the petitioner, impugns the order dated 26th March, 2014 whereby the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) has dismissed OA No. 1851/2013 and MA No. 3405/2013 as premature. The impugned order also observed that the petitioner would have liberty to raise all contentions during the course of the ongoing departmental proceedings.
2. The petitioner was recruited by the Union Public Service Commission and joined the Indian Broadcasting Engineering Service in 1988 and was posted as Station Engineer at All India Radio, Alwar, Rajasthan (AIR, Alwar for short) during the period 2002-2005.
3. On the basis of preliminary enquiry, memorandum dated 28th July, 2008 was issued pertaining to irregularities which took place at AIR, Alwar while the petitioner was posted there as Station Engineer, which read:-
“On an enquiry into the irregularities at AIR Alwar, it has been observed that civil minor works were carried out by two or three Gwalior firms. As per audit report it seems that bills were obtained first from the firms and their approval were taken later according to amount mentioned in the bills. As per loan register, 5 electronic equipments were issued to SE, AIR, Alwar. Substandard materials were purchased from one firm i.e. M/s. Dhruva Electricals, Hope Circus, Alwar for 49 items at lowest rates. Over-payments of Rs.l,88,202/- has been made by SE, AIR, Alwar to the Private Security Agency M/s. Millennium Security Service, Jaipur. Further, without settling the audit objections for this overpayment, SE, AIR, Alwar released the withheld amount of Rs.75,738/- to the Security Agency. Digital Clocks worth Rs.87,144/- on three different occasions have been purchased which made it infructuous expenditure.
2. Ministry has desired to have the explanation of Sh. Rajesh Babu, DDE (formerly SE, AIR, Alwar)(now working as DDE, 0/o CE(NEZ), Guwahati). It is accordingly requested that Rajesh Babu, DDE, 0/o CE( NEZ), Guwahati may kindly submit his explanation within a fortnight.”
Through his reply dated 11th August, 2008, the petitioner had denied the allegations.
4. At this stage, it may be relevant to state that FIR No. 275/2004 dated 29th December, 2004 was registered against the petitioner on a complaint made by the wife of a Security Guard working at AIR, Alwar. Thereafter, vide letter dated 31st December, 2004, the petitioner made allegations of defamation against several of his superiors at AIR, Alwar and stated that FIR No. 275/2004 was false. On 18th March, 2005 final report was filed before the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Alwar which was accepted. The final report was subsequently received by the Director General of All-India Radio, Delhi. By the letter dated 5th October, 2006 the petitioner had alleged financial irregularities and malpractices occurring at AIR, Alwar, and correspondence was thereafter exchanged.
5. In the course of time, and after considerable interval, the petitioner was issued Memorandum of Charges dated 24th January, 2013. By letter dated 7th February, 2013 the petitioner sought documents which would be relied upon in the Departmental Proceedings in order to file his reply, stating that he would not be in a position to respond to the charges levelled against him relating to the period 2002-2005. It is the petitioner’s case that vide two reminders date 10th April, 2013 and 14th May, 2013 he reiterated the request made to the respondents for supply of relevant documents so that he could file his reply against the charge memo dated 24th January, 2013. However, there was no response from the respondents and the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed by order dated 8th May, 2013. The petitioner’s request for supply of relevant documents was not complied with and remained under consideration. The petitioner on 27th May, 201
