Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Dinesh Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 13259 of 2019
Decided On : 11-02-2022
Disciplinary Authority - Timely Decision - The court directed the disciplinary authority to make a decision within a stipulated timeframe, allowing the petitioner to challenge the decision if adverse.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a direction for the disciplinary authority to make a decision within a stipulated timeframe following the submission of the inquiry report.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the disciplinary authority to make a decision within the next six months, allowing the petitioner to raise objections regarding the decision, including any delay as per law.
Issues: Timely decision by disciplinary authority, petitioner's right to challenge the decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the disciplinary authority to make a timely decision and upheld the petitioner's right to challenge the decision if adverse.
Final Decision: The application was disposed of, and the writ petition and pending application were closed, with the date fixed in the matter being cancelled.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J. - CM aPPL. 3175/2022
1. On the previous date i.e., 19.01.2022, we had passed the following order in the above-captioned application :
'1. Mr a. S. Singh, who appears on behalf of the petitioner/applicant, says that since the inquiry officer has submitted the inquiry report, albeit on 30.03.2021, all that the petitioner seeks, in the form of direction, is that the disciplinary authority should take a decision, one way or another, within the stipulated timeframe.
2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.08.2019, passed by the Central administrative Tribunal [in short the 'Tribunal'] in O.a. No.2772/2017, wherein the operative directions issued were that the inquiry should be completed within a period of six months.
3. Given this position, we are prima facie of the view that a direction can be issued to the disciplinary authority to take a decision in the matter within a stipulated timeframe, with liberty to the petitioner to assail the decision of the disciplinary authority, if it is adverse to his interest based on the grounds raised in the O.a., as also the grounds taken in the writ petition.
4. Mr Hanu Bhaskar, who appears on behalf of the respondents, says that he will take instructions in the matter.
4.1. Mr Singh says that he will do likewise.
5. List the matter on 11.02.2022.
6. In the meanwhile, Mr Singh will furnish a copy of the case papers, including the above-captioned application to Mr Bhaskar during the course of the day, albeit, via e-mail."
2. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, Mr Hanu Bhaskar, who appears on behalf of the respondents, has reverted with instructions.
2.1. Mr Bhaskar says that the final decision will be taken by the disciplinary authority qua the petitioner, within the next six months commencing from today.
2.2. The statement of Mr Bhaskar is taken on record.
3. The above-captioned application is, thus, disposed of, in view of the statement made by Mr Bhaskar above. However, it would be open to the petitioner to raise any objections vis-a-vis the final decision taken by the disciplinary authority, including the objection with regard to delay, albeit, as per law.
W.P.(C) 13259/2019 & CM aPPL.53914/2019[application filed on behalf of the petitioner for interim relief]
4. Both Mr R.V. Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, and Mr Bhaskar say that the writ petition and the pending application can be closed, having regard to the order passed in CM No.3175/2022.
4.1. It is ordered accordingly.
5. Resultantly, the date fixed in the matter i.e., 09.05.2022 shall stand cancelled.
6. The case file shall stand consigned to record.
The disciplinary authority must make a timely decision, and the petitioner has the right to challenge the decision if adverse.
The court reinforces the responsibility of disciplinary authorities to make timely decisions on inquiries, ensuring procedural fairness for affected parties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for leave to pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was filed in a sheer illegal, arbitrary, ....
The court emphasized the need to balance the need for expeditious proceedings with fairness towards the employee in disciplinary proceedings.
Inordinate delay in initiating and completing disciplinary proceedings can cause prejudice to the delinquent and vitiate the proceedings.
Employer must seek an extension of time if the inquiry is not concluded within the time fixed by the Court, and the Court has the jurisdiction to extend the time in the interest of justice and public....
Timely completion of disciplinary inquiries is essential to uphold the rights of retired employees, with strict adherence to administrative guidelines mandated by government orders.
Failure to comply with court-issued time lines for disciplinary proceedings, without obtaining an extension, renders the proceedings and resulting order bad in law.
Delay in disciplinary proceedings does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry; the authority retains the power to extend time limits set by the Tribunal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
