The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that a disciplinary enquiry initiated against an employee needs to give its findings within a reasonable period of time, and unexplained delay becomes a ground to vitiate the findings of the proceeding as it loses its deterrent effect.
The Bench expounded that the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are separate and require different parameters for judging with respect to these proceedings.
Brief Facts:
The Respondent was appointed as a Warden Class-III in 197 and faced suspension in 1983 over alleged misappropriation of funds. Following this, an enquiry was initiated, leading to the filing of a FIR against her and her husband in 1984.
Despite being acquitted in criminal proceedings in 2002, the departmental enquiry against her persisted, with a final order of compulsory retirement and financial loss recovery issued in 2008, nearly three decades after the initiation of the enquiry.
The respondent then filed an Original Application (OA) with the Tribunal, challenging the disciplinary actions and seeking service benefits. The Tribunal accepted her contention and held that the order of compulsory retirement was incorrect and ordered reinstating her position as the warden. The petitioner therefore has filed the present petition to challenge the said order of the tribunal.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was contended that the disciplinary and criminal proceedings are separate and the parameters required to test the veracity of these proceedings are different.
Contentions of the Respondent:
It was argued that there was an unreasonable delay in the proceedings, lack of proof of charges, and the punishment given was disproportionate.
Observations of the Court:
The Court found the delay of over 30 years in adjudicating the enquiry proceedings unreasonable and detrimental to both parties. Moreover, it was noted that this delay was unexplained and vitiated the findings of the committee, as it lost its deterrent effect. Moreover, it was opined that the non-speaking nature of the orders imposing penalties violated the principles of natural justice, and that even if the findings were accepted, the penalties imposed were disproportionate.
The Bench expounded that the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are separate and require different parameters for judging with respect to these proceedings. However, the Petitioner- State themselves have relied upon the pendency of these proceedings with respect to certain charges and therefore now they could not turn around and submit otherwise.
Decision of the Court:
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Court accordingly dismissed the petition.
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra and Another V. Shamat. Prabha Krishnaji Kamble
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Jain.
Case No.: Writ Petition No.10573 of 2015
Advocates for the petitioner: Advs. Mr. N. C. Walimbe, and Mr. N. K. Rajpurohit
Advocate for the respondent: Adv. Mr. Bhushan A. Bandiwadekar
Read More @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
