In the present case, the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Hima Kohli gives his opinion on can delay in conducting disciplinary inquiry vitiate it?
Facts of the Case:
In the instant case, a departmental enquiry was initiated against respondent No. 1, a police officer who allegedly despite instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police to disband the “Gunda squad”, respondent No. 1 constituted, supervised and operated the squad. Later a person who was arrested by such a squad died in police custody. A magisterial enquiry was conducted into the custodial death and a report was submitted on 10, October 2014. On 8th June, 2016, a departmental enquiry was convened against respondent No. 1 and a charge-sheet was issued. Respondent No. 1 moved to the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the said charge-sheet on the ground that there was a delay of nearly 2 years. The Tribunal quashed the charge-sheet issued to respondent No. 1. On appeal, DB dismissed the petition and affirmed the findings of the Tribunal.
Submission of the Petitioner:
Petitioner has submitted that there was, in fact, no delay and if there was a requirement for the enquiry to be concluded within a time schedule, such a direction could have been issued. Petitioner has also submitted that there was no justification to quash the enquiry and to obstruct the disciplinary proceedings which have been convened by the State in the exercise of its authority over the respondent no. 1.
Contention of the Respondent:
Respondent has contended that the delay, as a matter of fact, caused prejudice to respondent No. 1 since he was deprived of his opportunities of deputation and promotion at par with his other batch mates. Hence, it has been urged that the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceeding has caused serious prejudice to the respondent No.1.
Court’s reasoning and Judgement:
The Apex Court held that every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is being enquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise. Apart from submitting that respondent No. 1 was unable to proceed on deputation or to seek promotion, there is no basis on which it could be concluded that his right to defend himself stands prejudicially affected by a delay of two years in concluding the enquiry. The High Court has clearly failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by simply affirming the judgment of the Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal suffered from basic errors which go to the root of the matter and which have been ignored both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Picture Source :