Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law And ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10154
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12043 of 2024
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law And Justice Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Kumar Verma,Anoop Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Shishir Jain
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 and Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk in the District Court, Lucknow in the year 1989 and continued on the said post till date. It has been submitted that in the year 2006, preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Special Judge, CBI, Ayodhya Prakran pertaining to file of Case Crime No. 155 of 2002, Criminal Case No. 365 of 2002 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, which was missing and it was alleged that said file was in the custody of petitioner, who at that time was attached to the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI and decision was taken on the basis of preliminary inquiry to conduct regular inquiry against petitioner. Accordingly, Inquiry Officer was appointed by means of order dated 25.09.2006 and charge sheet was also submitted to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply on 30.10.2006, denying all the allegations levelled against him. In the charge sheet single charge was levelled against petitioner which pertains to dereliction of duty on the part of petitioner due to which file went missing which was in his custody.
4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after submission of reply to the charge sheet on 30.06.2006, no further proceedings have been conducted in the said inquiry and the same is pending for last 19 years. It is submitted that due to the pendency of said proceedings, case of petitioner for promotion to the next higher post has also not been considered and accordingly, present writ petition has been filed to quash entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in 2006.
5. Sri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the District Judge, Lucknow has filed detailed counter affidavit wherein in paragraph 3 it has been stated that information was received that record of Case No. 365 of 2002 arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 2002 was missing and preliminary inquiry was directed to be conducted on 12.10.2004, report of which was received on 20.01.2006, wherein petitioner was found to be prima-facie involved in missing of said file and consequently decision was taken to conduct regular inquiry against petitioner.
6. It is next submitted that record of final inquiry has been lost and by means of order dated 23.12.2024, the District Judge, Lucknow has passed order for re-constructions of the missing record of Final Inquiry No. 6 of 2006, but as per the counter affidavit filed today, it is evident that the record cannot be re-constructed, considering the fact that the matter is quite old and documents in this regard are not available and some of the employees, in the meanwhile have also retired.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that respondents be granted some time to re-construct the missing file and conclude the proceedings with expedition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has submitted that it would be inequitable to permit the inquiry to be conducted after a period of 19 years, specially looking to the fact that the petitioner has submitted his reply in October, 2006 itself and it is only after the present writ petition being filed, the respondents have passed orders for re-constructions of the missing file and no action has been taken by them in the intervening period of nearly 18 years.
9. It is further submitted that whether the respondents can be directed to proceed with the inquiry which is pending for last 18 years, has been subject matter of judicial review by various Courts and the view taken in this regard is that mere fact that inquiry is pending for long period of time, would be a ground in itself for quashing the entire proceedings. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Rattan Lal - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5287 of 2006 (decided on 01.11.2023), wherein the Court in para nos. 19, 20 and 21, has cited various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the following manner :-
"19. In so far as the judgments relied upon by Mr. Mishra are concerned, in the case of Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra), the Supreme Court has in paragraphs 9 and 10, held as under:
"9. In Forest Deptt. v. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury [(2009) 7 SCC 305 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 327] (SCC p. 310, para 16) this Court dealt with the issue and observed that delay in concluding the domestic enquiry is not always fatal. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should not (sic) be permitted to continue. 10. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge-sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the court. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ulagappa v. Commr., Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana."
20. Similarly in the case of V. Appala Swamy (supra), the Supreme Court has in paragraphs 12 and 13 held as under:
"12. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefor. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are: (1) where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee; (2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee. Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the inquiry officer. 13. This aspect of the matter is now squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Secy. to Govt., Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan; P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India; Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey."
21. Similarly in A. Masilamani (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraphs 17 and 18 held as under:
"17. The second question involved herein is also no longer res integra. Whether or not the disciplinary authority should be given an opportunity to complete the enquiry afresh from the point that it stood vitiated depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Thus, the court must examine the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee. It is in view of this, that courts/tribunals are not competent to quash the charge-sheet and related disciplinary proceedings, before the same are concluded on the aforementioned grounds. 18. The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is dehors the limits of judicial review. In the event that the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by the court. The same principle is applicable in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question have to be examined taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of charges involved therein. The essence of the matter is that the court must take into consideration all relevant facts and to balance and weigh the same, so as to determine if it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest administration, that the judicial proceedings are allowed to be terminated only on the ground of delay in their conclusion. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, Union of India v. Ashok Kacker, Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan, State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India, Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana and Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha."
10. In the present case, undoubtedly, charge against petitioner was serious which pertains to loss of Court's record and inquiry proceedings were initiated against petitioner in 2006 itself. After the petitioner submitted his reply, it seems that no date was fixed and neither inquiry concluded and it remained pending till the petitioner file present writ petition praying for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The only reason which is forthcoming from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is that file pertaining to disciplinary proceedings is missing.
11. Considering the response of the respondents, undoubtedly, it is the responsibility of the employer/disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings with expedition within reasonable period of time. In case file of disciplinary proceedings was missing, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have re-constructed the file at the earliest and conclude the proceedings with expedition.
12. The aspect of loss of file, it seems was never taken cognizance of by the respondents nor any steps were taken for re-constructions of the missing file. Even when directions were issued by the District Judge to re-construction of file on 23.12.2004, the Additional District and Sessions Judge has submitted a report on 06.02.2025, seeking further time to re-construct the file.
13. From the perusal of response of the petitioner it is indicated that file has travelled from the Office to the Court and number of persons are involved during the movement of a particular file during its progress from the office to the Court/copying section and back to the office. In order to ascertain and find liability, it would be open for the delinquent employee to examine other employees who are related in carrying the file from one Section/Court to another sections/Court, and most of the employees have retired from service and may not be able to appear in the disciplinary proceedings.
14. Mere fact that inquiry is pending for nearly two decades, in the present case would certainly prejudice the defense of petitioner, hence for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that long pendency of disciplinary proceedings in the present case would be liable to be quashed.
15. In cases where inordinate delay has been caused in completion of disciplinary proceedings, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Radhakrishnan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 : AIR 1998 SC 1833 has stated that:
"19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the Court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately the court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
16. From the above, it is clear that ninteen years time has lapsed and the delay is attributable only to the respondents. This Court finds that no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming with regard to delay in proceeding with the disciplinary inquiry in the counter affidavit, which may indicate as to why file was not re-constituted immediately after it was found to be missing. It seems that even the aspect that file was missing has been found out after filing of writ petition by the petitioner.
17. While exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has to look into the conduct of the disciplinary authority and if no justifiable reasons are forthcoming for the extraordinary delay which is attributable to the disciplinary authority, this Court would be within its jurisdiction to quash the entire disciplinary proceedings.
18. This Court further finds that the petitioner/delinquent Government servant is not responsible for the delay caused in pendency of disciplinary proceedings, inasmuch as he has already submitted his reply to the charge sheet.
19. For the reasons discussed herein above, the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioner in 2006, are hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 17.2.2025
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
