Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Attau Rahman Masoodi, Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.
Dharmendra Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
U.P. State Public Services Tribunal And Ors. – Respondents
WRIT -A No. - 13538 of 2018
Decided On : 23-01-2024
Delay in Concluding Inquiry Proceedings - Disciplinary Proceedings - U.P. Police Officers Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited - Union of India and others Vs. Sharvan Kumar
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a constable, was dismissed from service due to unauthorized absence. He challenged the dismissal, claiming mental illness and violation of natural justice. After reinstatement, he was again dismissed for the same reason. The petitioner filed a claim petition, which was dismissed by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings was due to the petitioner's non-cooperation. It held that the delay had been satisfactorily explained by the respondent, and the claim petition was rightly dismissed.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, delay in concluding inquiry proceedings, non-cooperation of the petitioner
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that delay in concluding a departmental inquiry does not automatically invalidate the proceedings. It emphasized the need to balance the need for expeditious proceedings with fairness towards the employee. The court also noted that the fixing of a time period by the court does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to extend the time in appropriate cases.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Dharmendra Mishra, assailing the judgment/order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition No. 137 of 2016 filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment/ dismissal dated 12.05.2015 and appellate order dated 30.11.2015, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2005, the petitioner was posted as Constable in 32nd Battalion, P.A.C., Lucknow. On 15.05.2015, he had gone to his home after getting the Earned Leave of fifteen days sanctioned i.e. till 01.06.2005, however, he came back on his duty on 04.06.2005 instead of 01.06.2005. Thereafter, on 25.06.2005 again, he had gone to his home after getting the Earned Leave of twenty days sanctioned i.e. till 25.06.2005, however, he did not report for duty on 25.06.2005. On account of the absence from duty, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.02.2006 and an inquiry was instituted against him. A charge-sheet was issued against him, however, it was alleged by the petitioner that the said charge-sheet was not served upon him. In the absence of reply to the charge-sheet, the Inquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry ex parte and submitted its ex parte inquiry report dated 20.11.2007 to the disciplinary authority. On receipt of the said inquiry report dated 20.11.2007, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 24.03.2008.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal dated 24.03.2008, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1991’), which was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2008. Against the order of dismissal dated 24.03.2008 and appellate order dated 08.08.2008, the petitioner had preferred revision, which too was rejected vide order dated 20.12.2012.
4. The petitioner, thereafter, has challenged the order of dismissal dated 24.03.2008, appellate order dated 08.08.2008 and revisional order dated 20.12.2012, before the Tribunal by instituting Claim Petition No. 129 of 2013. It is the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that since all of a sudden, he became mentally ill and was admitted in Mental Hospital, Rajendra Institute of Medical Science, Ranchi, w.e.f. 20.06.2005 to 23.07.2008, he could not join his services on the said date and also did not participate in the inquiry and the punishment of dismissal was passed in utter violation of natural justice as no charge-sheet had ever been served upon him nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to him. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties and examining the record, allowed the claim petition vide judgment/order dated 23.04.2014. The operative portion of the judgment/order dated 23.04.2014 reads as under :-
Delay in disciplinary proceedings does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry; the authority retains the power to extend time limits set by the Tribunal.
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, ....
Court-fixed timeline for disciplinary proceedings revokes suspension on expiry but permits continuation; punishment vitiated if show-cause reply ignored – Remit for fresh order on technical grounds.
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....
Time frames set by courts for inquiries are procedural; failure to meet them does not invalidate proceedings unless specific consequences are stated.
Point of law: The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee issued, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of Government employee, but in the public interest and also in ....
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
