IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Anil Dalal - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 12583 of 2021
Decided On : 10-11-2021
Chargesheet - Central Administrative Tribunal - The court set aside the impugned order and directed an enquiry against the respondent to be completed on or before 31.01.2022, ensuring no delay in the conduct of the enquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing the chargesheet issued against the respondent after a lapse of about 26 years from the date of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed an enquiry against the respondent to be completed on or before 31.01.2022, ensuring no delay in the conduct of the enquiry.
Issues: Validity of the chargesheet issued after a significant lapse of time, willingness of the respondent and petitioner to subject themselves to an enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for an enquiry to be completed promptly and without delay, ensuring that the fact of setting aside the impugned order would have no impact on the enquiry proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for an enquiry against the respondent to be completed on or before 31.01.2022, and the case papers were consigned to record.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM APPL. 39607/2021
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 12583/2021 and CM APPL. 39606/2021[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner for ex-parte ad-interim stay]
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short ‘the Tribunal’] in
OA No. 1082/2021.
2.1 Being aggrieved by the impugned order, whereby the Tribunal has quashed the chargesheet dated 13.09.2019, issued against the respondent, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present writ petition.
3. Mr Rajeev Sharma, who appears on behalf of the respondent, on instructions of the respondent, who has also joined the proceedings, says that, the chargesheet dated 13.09.2019 was issued to the respondent, after a lapse of about 26 years from the date of the incident, and both he and the respondent are confident that, the respondent will stand exonerated, if an enquiry is held in the matter.
3.1 Mr Sharma says that, the other officials, who were similarly circumstanced, have also been exonerated.
4. Given this position, we have put to Mr Sharma as well as to the respondent, as to whether they are willing to subject themselves to an enquiry.
4.1. Mr Sharma and the respondent say that, they would have no difficulty, if this Court were to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, with a direction that an enquiry against the respondent be completed on or before 31.01.2022.
4.2. Mr R.V. Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that, if such a direction is issued by the Court, the same will be complied with.
5. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside.
5.1. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the petitioner will ensure that, the enquiry proceedings are concluded on or before 31.01.2022.
5.2 Needless to add that, the respondent will not delay in any manner, the conduct of the enquiry. This direction would also apply to the Enquiry Officer.
5.3 The Enquiry Officer will fix a time schedule, to ensure that the enquiry is completed within the time-frame indicated hereinabove i.e., on or before 31.01.2022.
6. We make it clear that the fact that we have set aside the impugned order dated 28.07.2021, will have no impact on the enquiry proceedings. 6.1. The Enquiry Officer will reach his conclusion, vis- -vis the charges levelled against the respondent vide order dated 13.09.2019, without being burdened by the order passed by us today.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
8. It is also important to flag, at this stage, that once the Enquiry Officer submits his report, the next steps in the matter will be taken with due expedition by all concerned, including the disciplinary authority.
9. Consequently, pending application shall also stand closed.
10. The case papers shall stand consigned to record.
Prompt completion of enquiry proceedings without delay, ensuring no impact of court orders on the enquiry process.
Delay in disciplinary proceedings does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry; the authority retains the power to extend time limits set by the Tribunal.
Time frames set by courts for inquiries are procedural; failure to meet them does not invalidate proceedings unless specific consequences are stated.
The court emphasized the need for fair inquiry processes and adherence to natural justice principles in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring proper opportunity for evidence presentation and defense.
The disciplinary authority must make a timely decision, and the petitioner has the right to challenge the decision if adverse.
The court emphasized the need to balance the need for expeditious proceedings with fairness towards the employee in disciplinary proceedings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.