Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Pramod Kumar Gupta
Vs.
State of M.P. and Ors.
W.P. No. 8851 of 2009 (S)
Decided On: 05.05.2010
Inordinate delay in the initiation and continuation of departmental enquiry, causing serious prejudice to the employee, may lead to the quashing of the enquiry on the ground of delay and laches.
Headnote:
Delay in Departmental Enquiry - State Administrative Service - - [Section 80 of Municipal Corporation Act, GAD Circulars] - The court quashed the charge-sheet and departmental enquiry due to inordinate delay of 10 years in initiation of the enquiry and 4 1/2 years in continuation of the enquiry, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. The rejection of representation for grant of Senior Selection Scale was also quashed, with a direction to reopen the sealed cover and pass appropriate orders within three months.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a State Administrative Service officer, sought to quash the charge-sheet and departmental enquiry proceedings against him, citing inordinate delay in the initiation and continuation of the enquiry, causing serious prejudice to him. He also challenged the rejection of his representation for grant of Senior Selection Scale.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a massive delay of 10 years in issuing the charge-sheet from the cause of action, and more than six years from the date of the proposal by the Urban Administration Department. It noted that the delay in allowing inspection of documents and the continuation of the enquiry was not convincingly explained. The court concluded that the continuation of the departmental enquiry caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and quashed the charge-sheet and departmental enquiry, as well as the rejection of the representation for grant of Senior Selection Scale.
Issues: The issues revolved around the inordinate delay in the initiation and continuation of the departmental enquiry, the prejudice caused to the petitioner, and the rejection of his representation for grant of Senior Selection Scale.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if there is a delay in initiation of departmental enquiry and it is not convincingly explained, and such action is seriously prejudicial to the employee, then the departmental enquiry may be quashed on the ground of delay and laches.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the charge-sheet and departmental enquiry, and directed the respondents to reopen the sealed cover and pass appropriate orders for the grant of Senior Selection Scale to the petitioner within three months.
J.K. Maheshwari, J.
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:
(i) That the Charge-Sheet dated 18-7-2005 (Annexure P-6) may be ordered to be quashed and further departmental enquiry proceedings pending against the Petitioner may also be directed to be struck down.
(ii) The order of refusal of grant of Senior Selection Scale dated 15-6-2009 (Annexure P/19) may be ordered to be quashed.
(iii) The Respondent No. 1 be directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner for grant of Senior Selection Scale and to allow such benefits at par to the other incumbent or similarly situated officers by opening the sealed cover envelope.
(iv) The Respondent be also directed not to take any action causing prejudice to the Petitioner in the matter of grant of IAS cadre at par to other similarly situated officers.
2. The brief facts of case are that Petitioner was selected by M.P.P.S.C. on the post of Dy. Collector as per order dated 13-1-1986, which is properly known as State Administrative Service (in Short hereinafter referred to as the SAS). On completion of 6 years of service benefit of senior scale i.e. Rs. 10,000-14,000/- designating him as Joint Collector w.e.f. 1-1-93 has been allowed. On having blameless career selection scale i.e. of 12,000-16,000/- has further been allowed designating him as Additional Collector w.e.f. 1-1-1999 vide order dated 14-12-1999. At present he is posted as Chief Executive Officer, Indore Development Authority, Indore on deputation and discharging his duties on the said post.
3. In the year 1995, when he was posted on deputation as Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Ujjain in Urban Administration and Development Department a complaint was made against one Radheshyam and other persons including Petitioner. In the said complaint, it was said that Vikram Vatika, Ujjain, which was in the ownership of the Vikram University has been illegally delivered on license to one Narendra Bhadoriya by them. On the said complaint a case was registered by the Lokayukt Police and started investigation thereupon. As per intimation of the Dy. Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department (Borrowing Department) dated 1-10-2003 addressing to the Principal Secretary, GAD (parent department), it was jointly decided that the departmental action, if any, against the Petitioner to the said irregularities can only be taken after the enquiry by the Lokayukt Establishment, if he found guilty. The Lokayukt Sangathan vide its letter dated 3-1-2006 Annexure-P/12 intimated to GAD in reply to their letter dated 18-12-2005 that no evidence was found against the Petitioner, however the Challan in Court has not been filed against him, but filed against Radheshyam Bhadoriya and Shrilal Mohd. Khan and Ors. on 15-9-2004. It is stated initially that GAD has decided to not to initiate departmental enquiry, till report of Lokayukt, but without awaiting such report, charge-sheet has been issued on 18-7-2005 Annexure-P/6, alleging that Vikram Vatika was not the land of Municipal Corporation, Ujjain, however the license/lease may not be granted by the Corporation, by passing the resolution in Mayor-in-Council dated 30-5-1995, and Petitioner being Commissioner has not raised any objection to it. It is also stated that such lease/license is contrary to spirit of Section 80 of Municipal Corporation Act and under Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palik Nigam (Achal Sampatti Ka Antaran) Rule, 1994. The said act amount to misconduct.
4. At the time of issuance of charge-sheet Petitioner was posted as Joint Director, Madhya Pradesh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Bhopal, however, it was received by him as per Annexure P-6. On receiving the charge-sheet application to supply and to inspect the documents as specified in the list of documents, was submitted as per Annexure P-7/A & P-7/B. Vide letter dated 8-11-2005 (Annexure P-8) he was called on 11-11-2005, but such letter was received on 14-11-2005 in his of
