Delay in disciplinary proceedings does not automatically justify dismissal unless it significantly affects the employee's right to a fair inquiry.

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the correctness of the order dated 24.06.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No.4687 of 2021, whereby the Tribunal rejected the application of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that during the period from 02.04.2008 to 06.12.2008, the petitioner was working as a Police Inspector at Mandi Police Station, Mysuru. He was issued with a charge memo on the allegations that he has not registered an First Information Report (F.I.R.) and not conducted investigation against certain persons and thus, committed misconduct under Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965, and Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The petitioner replied the same by contending that he has done his best and has not committed any misconduct. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and filed a Report that the petitioner has committed misconduct and on the basis of the same, the respondent-Government Authority imposed penalty withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect for a period of five years. Thus, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 24.06.2023, dismissed Application No.4687 of 2021. Challenging the said order of dismissal by the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Articles of charge were framed on 28.04.2016. On 22.10.2016, the petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges. On 31.01.2017, the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his Report holding that charges are proved and the Upalokayukta recommended the Government to impose penalty on the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No.1 imposed penalty against the petitioner. Hence, he submits that there is delay of eight years in initiating the Departmental Enquiry. The petitioner is not at all responsible for the misconduct alleged and in view of the long delay, the right of the petitioner to raise defence is taken away. Further, the Tribunal, without considering this vital aspect of the matter, dismissed the application.

Learned counsel submits that there was inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo, same would jeopardise the right of the petitioner. Hence, he places reliance on the following judgments:

i. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. RADHAKRISHNAN reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154,

ii. P.V. MAHADEVAN v. MD, TN HOUSING BOARD reported in 2005 (6) SCC 636, &

iii. UCO BANK v. RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA reported in 2018 (14) SCC 92.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned Special counsel for respondent No.4-Lokayukta supporting the impugned order, submitted that, it is well settled legal principle that the Courts should generally refrain from interfering with the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, more particularly, the charge memo, imposing of penalty, not withstanding the delay caused in issuing the charge memo having regard to the nature and gravity of the charge and the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application and the same deserves to be confirmed by this Court.

5. In this case, during the period from 02.04.2008 to 06.12.2008, the petitioner worked in the cadre of Police Inspector at Mandi Police Station, Mysuru. On 14.03.2007, Sri T. Nagaraju, a member of Vidhyavardhaka Sangha, Mysuru, lodged a complaint to Mandi Police Stati