The Delhi High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta remarked disciplinary proceedings cannot continue endlessly as it would be destructive of the Rule of Law and highly prejudicial to the official facing it.(Anish Gupta Vs Union of India)
The bench observed, “There is no gainsaying the legal position that the Disciplinary Proceedings cannot continue ad infinitum. Allowing such proceedings to continue ad infinitum would not only be highly prejudicial to the Petitioner herein but destructive of the Rule of Law.”
The court stated that the Union of India is bound to act in a fair non-discriminatory, reasonable, and non-capricious manner, and in the normal course, the disciplinary proceedings, in this case, ought to have been concluded by the end of 2016.
Facts of the case
The petitioner was served with a Departmental Charge Sheet/ Memorandum of Charge dated 16.07.2015, pursuant to an incident of July, 2013. Admittedly, no criminal investigation or prosecution was ever initiated or contemplated against him.
The Petitioner moved before CAT praying for quashing the Charge Sheet. CAT granted the Union of India (respondent) four months time to complete the Disciplinary Proceedings arising from the subject Charge Sheet. Since, the Union of India did not comply with the aforesaid directions, the Petitioner again moved CAT seeking closure of the said Charge Sheet. The Union of India admittedly did not file any application for extension of time.
The CAT Vide the impugned Order dated 29.07.2021, allowed the Petitioner’s application for closure of the Charge Sheet and rejected the Union’s application for further extension of time with a further direction that the sealed cover qua the Petitioner be opened forthwith, and he be granted promotions at par with his juniors. The Petitioner then withdrew his application to approach High Court.
Issue before the Court
Whether the Union of India was entitled for further extension of time as prayed for by it before the CAT. If the answer to the above is in the negative; what then would be the consequences of such a rejection.
Court's observations and Judgment
The court noted that as per a decision of the Supreme Court, every employer whether State or private has to make sincere endeavours to conclude departmental enquiry proceedings within a reasonable time and as far as possible within six months and in cases where the employer can't do so due to certain unavoidable causes then an effort should be made to conclude the same within the reasonably extended period but not more than a year.
The bench further noted that the Central Vigilance Commission also issued a Circular in 2016 containing instructions to comply with the said directions of the apex court in all disciplinary proceedings.
The court observed that the facts of the present case provided no scope to granting any indulgence to the respondent as it cannot be said that ample opportunities were not given for the conclusion of the departmental proceedings.
The court said, “The Respondent 'Union of India' being a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution is bound to act in a fair non-discriminatory, reasonable, and non-capricious manner. The conduct of the Respondent in the facts of the present over a long period of five years and not merely on one-two date of hearing, disentitles it for any discretionary relief of extension of time… Authority must be strictly held to the standards by which it professes its conduct to be judged.”
The court further observed, “It is not in dispute that in the normal course the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been concluded by the end of 2016. More than adequate opportunities to complete the disciplinary proceedings arising from Departmental Charge Sheet dated 16.07.2015 had been granted by the CAT firstly in 2016, and then again in 2020. The proceedings were admittedly not concluded within this long period stretching from July 2015 till May 2021.”
The court stated that the authorities “evidently received a time period of more than five years, which is many times more than the time period contemplated under the dicta of the Supreme Court” and declared that the proceedings arising from the departmental charge-sheet no longer survived and stood closed.
The bench disposing off the application remarked, "It is not in dispute that no other Disciplinary Proceedings were contemplated against the petitioner. The use of the words "the pendency of any disciplinary proceedings" in para 6, and observation in Para 7 of the order impugned before us, to the effect that benefits thereunder "shall be subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings" appear to be wholly unwarranted and have created unnecessary anomaly, warranting interference therewith in the instant petition. The aforesaid limited and apparent error of CAT has caused unnecessary prejudice to the petitioner and resultantly in the interest of justice, the said unwarranted words are required to be eschewed from the said para 6 and 7 of the impugned common Order."
The court rejected the challenge to the CAT order by the Centre and directed that the petitioner be given all consequential benefits, including the necessary promotions at par with his juniors, within four weeks.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
