SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, A.K. SIKRI, JJ.
State of Maharashtra – Appellants
Versus
Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No.1020-1021/2014 (@Special Leave Petition (Civil) 2920-2921/2014) (Arising out of CC No. 17498-17499/2013)
Decided On : 29-01-2014
(b) Service Law - Departmental proceedings - Charge sheet 25 years old - Departmental proceeding can start only after dismissal order in another charge sheet is set aside entailing further loss of time - Not desirable to start proceeding after 30 years of charge sheet - Termination of proceedings upheld. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
Respondent No. 1 was served with three charge-sheets dated 6.07.1988, 4.05.1998 and 5.10.1998.
He had challenged the validity of these charge-sheets but failed in his attempts.
Because of the pendency of various proceedings in one judicial forum or the other, the departmental proceedings were delayed.
In the meantime, the inquiry into second charge-sheet dated 4.05.1998 proceeded which resulted in the order of dismissal from service passed against Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 has challenged the dismissal order and his OA in this behalf is pending before the Tribunal.
The respondent no. 1 challenged the departmental enquiry on the basis of third charge sheet after his dismissal.
High Court terminated the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
No interference is required in the impugned order.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.K.SIKRI, J.
1. Delay Condoned.
2. Leave Granted.
3. Since counsel for the State of Maharashtra (Appellant) as well as Respondent No. 1, who appears in person, were ready to argue the matter finally, we heard both the parties at length.
4. The issue involved in the present case is in a very narrow compass, though actual matrix, stated in this matter, is irritatingly long. In any case, it is not necessary for us to narrate all the background facts in their entirety. Eschewing those details which are altogether unnecessary for the disposal of the present appeal, we state here under those only facts that are relevant for our purpose.
5. Having successfully cleared the Civil Services Examination and being allocated Maharashtra Cadre, as a member of the Indian Administrative Services (IAS), Respondent No. 1 joined the service in the State of Maharashtra on 1.09.1982. While, discharging duties in that capacity, he was suspended from service vide order dated 26.05.1988 which was followed by charge-sheet dated 6.07.1988 for major penalty proceedings. Respondent No. 1 had challenged the legality of suspension order as well as the validity of said charge-sheet. However, we are not concerned with all those proceedings. We may only mention that in all three charge-sheets were served upon Respondent No. 1 namely, charge- sheet dated 6.07.1988, 4.5.1998 as well as charge-sheet dated 5.10.1998. Though, departmental inquiries started in these cases and gave rise to multiple litigation, some of which would be taken a note of hereinafter, it is pertinent to mention at this stage that on the basis of departmental inquiry conducted into the charges levelled vide charge-sheet dated 5.10.1998, Respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service vide order dated 2.04.2007.
6. In the charge-sheet dated 4.05.1998, the mis-demeanour alleged against Respondent No. 1 was that he unauthorizedly absented from duty i.e. did not join duty even after his suspension was withdrawn. In the third charge-sheet dated 5.10.1998, the charge related to not filing of annual returns.
7. Respondent No. 1 had challenged the validity of these charge-sheets before the Central Administrative Tribunal in which he could not succeed. His writ petitions challenging the orders of the Tribunal were also dismissed. These writ petitions were taken up along with four other writ petitions and all these writ petitions were decided by the High Court vide common judgment dated 14.12.2010. While repelling the challenge to the validity of the charge-sheets the High Court had, inter alia, observed as under:-
“ We need not dilate on the issue for the simple reason the petitioner could earn no promotion till he was exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings and we note that the petitioner is facing three inquiries and is himself responsible for the delay and we note that in one of them i.e. the 2nd charge-sheet an order dismissing him from service has already been passed which is under challenge before the Tribunal.”
8. We may record here that initially Respondent No. 1 had filed C.M. in this court and it had granted stay of the inquiry proceedings in the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1. However, that writ was dismissed on 7.10.2002 and thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed on 20.12.2002. At that stage the Respondent No. 1 had sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 6.07.1988 by filing OA No. 1386/06. In that OA, he had prayed for quashing of order dated 20.12.2002 as well, under which the inquiry officer was appointed to conduct an inquiry pertaining to the said charge-sheet. This OA was dismissed by the Tribunal which was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition(Civil) No. 2563 of 2007. This writ petition was also dismissed along with other batch matters by the aforesaid common judgment. Discussion of the High Court, while declining to quash the charge-sheet dated 6.07. 1988 is contained in paras 54 to 59 of the said judgment dated 14.12.2010. We would like to reproduce certain
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.