Back
2012 Supreme(HP) 420
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Dev Darshan Sud, J.
Smt. Kamlesh Thakur - Petitioner
Versus
The Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharamshala - Respondents
CWP(T) No. 9144 and 9167 of 2008
Decided on : 9th October,2012
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3:Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate.
Delay in departmental proceedings is fatal to the inquiry and causes prejudice to the charged officer unless there is a proper explanation for the delay. The principle of administrative justice emphasizes the importance of concluding disciplinary proceedings expeditiously and ensuring fairness in the inquiry process.
Headnote:
Delay in Departmental Proceedings - Misappropriation - 1983-1989 - [KEYWORD] - [Delay in Departmental Proceedings] - [State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakishan (1998)4 SCC 154, P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD. T.N. Housing Board (2005)6 SCC 636, State Bank of India and others vs. D.C. Aggarwal and another (1993)1 SCC 13, State of UP. Vs. Shatrughan Lal and another (1998)6 SCC 651, General Manager, UCO Bank and another vs. M. Venu Ranganath, (2007) 13 SCC 251] - The court discussed the delay in departmental proceedings and emphasized that delay itself is fatal to the inquiry. It considered the nature of the charge, its complexity, and the reason for the delay, and concluded that the delay had vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, causing prejudice to the delinquent employee. The court also highlighted the principle of administrative justice, emphasizing that delay defeats justice and causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is a proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Clerk, faced long unending departmental proceedings relating to an inquiry held against him in 1989 for misappropriation of funds and embezzlement from 1983 to 1989. The petitioner repeatedly requested for early disposal of the proceedings, but no action was taken by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in the departmental proceedings had prejudiced the petitioner and quashed the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the penalty imposed upon him. The court also set aside the order of recovery of the misappropriated amount.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in the departmental proceedings, non-supply of documents to the petitioner, and the fairness of the inquiry proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that delay in departmental proceedings is fatal to the inquiry and emphasized the principle of administrative justice, stating that delay defeats justice and causes prejudice to the charged officer unless there is a proper explanation for the delay. The court also emphasized the importance of supplying documents to the delinquent employee and ensuring fairness in the inquiry proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the disciplinary authority, set aside the penalty imposed upon the petitioner, and also quashed the order of recovery of the misappropriated amount. The court also quashed the order related to recovery of the misappropriated amount and directed all consequential benefits to follow. Additionally, the court quashed the order of recovery of the misappropriated amount and directed all consequential benefits to follow.
Dev Darshan Sud, J.
1. These two petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. It is unfortunate that the petitioner Shri Jagdish Thakur (since dead) who was working as Senior Clerk with the respondent had faced a long unending departmental proceedings relating to some inquiry held against him in the year 1989. The facts as disclosed are that the proceedings are inquisitorial in nature and under the garb of enforcing disciplinary proceedings had become interminable despite repeated requests by the petitioner for early disposal.
2. It is undisputed before me that the deceased petitioner (now represented by his wife) was charge sheeted on 31.8.1990. Two Articles of Charge had been framed against him. The gist of the charges were that (i) the petitioner while working as Senior Clerk and posted as Incharge of Sale Book Depot at Nahan in 1988 was called to Dharamshala for three days for verifying the adjustment of advance amounts and purported irregularities found during the inspection of the depot. The petitioner reported at Dharamshala on 28.11.1988 and some alleged irregularities having been found on inspection of the record. He was directed to report to the Head office at Dharamshala on 3.12.1988 but he did not do so. This act of the petitioner was found to be disobedience of the order passed by the respondents.
3. The second charge, which was more serious, was that during this period when the petitioner was posted at Nahan, he was responsible for embezzlement of ` 11,08,986.48 Ps. Vide letter dated 30.6.1990 the petitioner was directed to reconcile the differences within 15 days with the sale branch but he did not do so. This act of embezzlement etc. was attributed to the petitioner as being a pre-planned conspiracy.
4. What I need notice here is that the charge sheet was framed in the year 1990. The petitioner approached the Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 837 of 1999 which was decided on 22nd April, 1991 challenging his suspension. The petition was disposed of on the statement having been made on behalf of the respondent before the Tribunal that the suspension order of the petitioner had been revoked. After the issuance of the charge sheet, First Information Report No. 64/91 was lodged on 29.4.1991 on the basis of a complaint addressed by the respondent Board to the Superintendent of Police, Nahan. In a nutshell, the case made out against the petitioner was that he was working as Senior Clerk with the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education and while he was posted in Sale Book Depot at Nahan, during the period from 1983 to 1988, he dishonestly misappropriated huge stock of text books entrusted to him by the Board for supply/sale to the authorized agents. These misdeeds came to the notice of the Board after inspection of the record and verification of stocks by the internal audit party on 18.12.1986. The petitioner was asked to produce the record at the head office at Dharamshala vide letter No. HB/Sale/S/88-4000-4009, dated 7.9.1988. The petitioner had attended the office on 29.11.1988 along with certain record. On checking the record, it was found that the same was not original record but was fabricated. He was detained for the next day for further verification along with the records but he applied for leave on 29.11.1988 with permission to leave station on the pretext that he had to go to Dehradun to attend some court case. He was permitted to go but directed to leave the record behind. But the petitioner left the office along with the record and thereafter he cooked up a story that when he was returning to Dharamshala, his brief case containing the record had been stolen. The First Information Report has been placed on record as Annexure A-2 with the petition, which is not disputed. A criminal case was filed against the petitioner. A cancellation report Annexure A-11 was filed by the police after detailed investigation in which it was stated that despite a number of opportuni
