SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
Dinesh Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13259 of 2019
Decided On : 11-02-2022




The court reinforces the responsibility of disciplinary authorities to make timely decisions on inquiries, ensuring procedural fairness for affected parties.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Authority and jurisdiction to issue directives regarding inquiry completion - The court directed the disciplinary authority to make a timely decision following the inquiry officer’s report submitted on 30.03.2021. (Paras 1-2)

(B) Procedural fairness - The petitioner was granted liberty to contest any adverse decision from the disciplinary authority based on the grounds presented. (Paras 3-4)

(C) Judicial review - The court emphasized the importance of promptly addressing the inquiry and providing the petitioner an opportunity to challenge decisions. (Paras 3-4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a writ petition challenging a prior order from the Tribunal mandating the completion of an inquiry within six months. The court noted the inquiry report and the need for a decision from the disciplinary authority.

Findings of Court:
The court accepted the undertaking that a decision would be taken within six months and allowed the petitioner to object to the findings if necessary.

Issues: The key issue involved ensuring timely decision-making by the disciplinary authority following an inquiry report.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that procedural fairness must be observed by issuing clear timelines for disciplinary decisions, thereby safeguarding the petitioner’s interests.

Result: The application was disposed of and the writ petition was allowed to be closed.

Table of Content
1. inquiry report received; direction for timely decision. (Para 1)
2. closure of writ petition and consignment of records. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top