Back
2024 Supreme(HP) 153
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Rajeev Kumar Jaswal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Respondents
CWP No. 7190 of 2023
Decided On : 21-03-2024
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Sohail Khan, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. Leela Nand Sharma and Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Addl. Adv. Generals with Ms. Avni Kochhar, Deputy Adv. General.
IMPORTANT POINT
Undue delay in disciplinary proceedings can cause prejudice to the officer being enquired into, and the similarity in charges with another case can indicate potential prejudice.
Headnote:
disciplinary proceedings - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - Rule 14, Rule 3(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) - Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi (2015) 16 SCC 415 - State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Akhilesh Jha and another - Civil Appeal No. 5153 of 2021
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer, sought the quashing of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on the grounds of lack of basis and delay. The respondents contested the claim, citing the petitioner's failure to comply with inspection norms and the lack of prejudice due to the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner suffered prejudice due to the undue delay in the disciplinary proceedings, as the inquiry reports were not found to be in consonance with the law by the disciplinary authority. The court also noted the similarity in charges with another case where a lesser penalty was imposed, indicating potential prejudice to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of basis for the disciplinary proceedings and the prejudice caused by the delay in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that undue delay in disciplinary proceedings can cause prejudice to the officer being enquired into, as established in Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi (2015) 16 SCC 415, and State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Akhilesh Jha and another - Civil Appeal No. 5153 of 2021.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the disciplinary inquiry initiated against the petitioner was quashed and set-aside. The respondents were directed to open the sealed cover and promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, with all consequential benefits to be completed within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
The petitioner has prayed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:
i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued and the Memorandum dated 26.3.2022, Annexure P-5, may kindly be quashed and set-aside by further quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings carried out against the petitioner in the interest of law and justice.
ii) That an appropriate, writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to open the sealed cover with respect to promotional case of the petitioner with further directions to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise from the date juniors of the petitioners were promoted, with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears etc. etc.”
2. Undisputed facts, which are relevant for adjudication of the petition are that the petitioner was posted as Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer (State Taxes & Excise Officer) in Dehra Circle of District Kangra in the year 2021-22. A memorandum dated 26.03.2022 was served upon the petitioner by respondent No.2, proposing to hold an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short, “CCS (CCA) Rules). The Article of Charge framed against petitioner was that he had failed to conduct the inspection of a liquor vend, “Jambal” as per the norms fixed for the same during the month of September, 2021. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officers were appointed by respondent No.2 on 21.04.2022 vide separate office orders.
3. The petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court on 29.9.2023 on the premise that despite the continuance of inquiry against petitioner for more than 18 months, the same had not culminated.
4. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the departmental proceedings initiated against him vide aforesaid chargesheet on the grounds, firstly, that the initiation of inquiry was without any basis and, secondly, the same was liable to be quashed on account of efflux of time in the teeth of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another (2015) 16 SCC 415 followed by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 29.11.2022, passed in CWP No. 5724 of 2022, titled Mohinder Kumar Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
5. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner on both the grounds. As regard the first objection, it has been submitted that the petitioner had failed to comply with the norms fixed by the Excise & Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh on 03.10.2012, which clearly mandated the petitioner to inspect the excise vend in rural area once in a month. Since the petitioner had omitted to do so in respect of the excise vend at Jambal for the month of September, 2021, he had violated the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. As regards, the delay in culmination of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner, it has been submitted that the petitioner cannot take benefit of such delay which was unavoidable and more particularly when the petitioner had not been prejudiced by such delay. Reliance has been placed on a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.09.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 5153 of 2021, titled State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Akhilesh Jha and another.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
7. A Division Bench of this Court while deciding CWP No. 5724 of 2022, titled Mohinder Kumar Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, vide judgment dated 29.11.2022, has observed and held as under:
“3. The moot question in such circumstances is: whether the Inquiry Officer be permitted to conduct inquiry in perpetuity especially in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as laid down in Prem Nath Bali versus Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Ano
