Inordinate delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings, lack of application of mind in disciplinary orders, and gravity of charges can influence the court's decision to quash orders and direct redetermination of emoluments.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This case has got a long and chequered history, where delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner has led to much suffering for him. But, as the course of proceedings would show, the petitioner himself is responsible in substantial measure for the delay that came about in consequence of an interim order passed by this Court, when he challenged his provisional reinstatement in service, revoking his suspension. At the centre stage of challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 22.06.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, awarding the petitioner the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect and awarding him an adverse entry, deciding the pending disciplinary proceedings by the said order. The other order impugned is the one dated 07.06.2012, fixing for the petitioner his salary by the District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar. The last under challenge is the order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

2. The petitioner was appointed a Clerk in the office of the District Supply Officer, Kanpur. He was transferred from Kanpur Head Office to Akbarpur, situate in Kanpur Dehat in the year 1981. He was again transferred from Akbarpur to Kanpur in the year 1982 by an order of 9th December, 1992 passed by the District Supply Officer. The petitioner was transferred from Kanpur Nagar to Farrukhabad. He was placed under suspension pending inquiry and vide order dated 16.12.1983 passed by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner after a lapse of a year and a half on 19.06.1985. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet aforesaid on 22.06.1987.

3. Some five years later, the suspension order dated 16.12.1983 was revoked by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad vide order dated 27.05.1990 and the petitioner reinstated on a provisional basis. The District Magistrate, Farrukhabad by a memo dated 14.05.1991 issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause why his services may not be terminated. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause on 24.06.1991. It is averred that after suspension from service on 16.12.1985, followed by the order dated 22.05.1985, disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner lingered on, which adversely affected the petitioner's right to be considered for promotion. It is also averred that no inquiry was undertaken, though the petitioner had submitted his reply to the charge-sheet way back on 22.06.1987, as already said.

4. It appears that inquiry into the charge-sheet dated 22.05.1985 was not at all undertaken and without concluding it, the petitioner was issued with the show cause notice dated 14.12.1991, already spoken of, where the District Magistrate asked him to show cause why his services may not be terminated. The basis of the show cause notice was a different charge altogether, that was not part of the charge-sheet dated 22.05.1985, as the petitioner asserts. In the circumstances, the petitioner instituted Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22002 of 1991 before this Court, seeking to quash the pending disciplinary proceedings, presumably on the ground of inordinate delay. A further relief was sought by way of a mandamus commanding the respondents to transfer the petitioner from Kanpur to Farrukhabad and pay him his due salary for the period of suspension. In the said writ petition, an order was passed on 02.08.1991, directing the State to file a return within four weeks, and vide interim order, it was provided that departmental proceedings against the petitioner may continue, but final orders shall not be pronounced until further orders of this Court.

5. The interim order dated 02.08.1991 was vacated vide order dated 09.04.2004. It appears that the order dated 09.04.2004 was not communicated to the respondents, and, therefore, no final orders were made in the pending disciplinary proceedings. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22002