Back
RAJAN ROY
Pawan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Dept. Civil Sect. Lko – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the Tribunal while deciding the Claim Petition No. 151 of 2011 quashing the earlier order of punishment dated 08.01.2011 and directing the opposite parties before it to conclude the inquiry or the disciplinary proceedings within three months of service of the copy of said judgment, the said judgment was challenged by the State before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 4147 (SB) of 2017 which was dismissed summarily on 22.02.2017. Therefore, the State was already aware of the judgment dated 31.03.2015 passed in the above mentioned claim petition as it had challenged the same before this Court and its petition was dismissed on 22.02.2017. However, the disciplinary proceedings were not completed within three months as ordered, not even from the date of passing of the judgment in Writ Petition by the High Court. Instead, the inquiry was completed on 17.09.2020, that is, almost five years from the date of judgment of the Tribunal and three years from the date of judgment of the High Court. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.10.2020 and the final order for punishment has been passed by the Sta
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....
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.
Failure to comply with court-issued time lines for disciplinary proceedings, without obtaining an extension, renders the proceedings and resulting order bad in law.
Delay in disciplinary proceedings does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry; the authority retains the power to extend time limits set by the Tribunal.
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; court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant an extension of time, the original stipulation of time having been fixed by the court itself
Delay in disciplinary enquiry does not automatically invalidate proceedings; courts have discretion to extend time for completion.
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
