Ram Chandra Singh Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3904 MP

                                                      W.P. No.7479/2011

                                  1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                     BEFORE
   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                    ON THE 22nd OF MARCH, 2022



                WRIT PETITION No. 7479 of 2011

  Between:-
  RAM CHANDRA SINGH CHOUHAN S/O LATE SHRI HARGYAN SINGH
  CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, H. NO. 89 M. I. G. DR.
  HEDGEWAR COLONY DISTT. VIDHSHA M. P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....PETITIONER

  (SHRI SANJAY SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER )

  AND

1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
   GOVT. OF M.P. FARMER WELFARE AND AGRICULTURE
   DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY, VALLABH BHAWAN,
   BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. THE DIRECTOR OF FARMER WELFARE AND AGRICULTURE
   DEVELOPMENT M.P. VINDHYACHAL BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
   PRADESH)

                                                   .....RESPONDENTS

  (SHRI SANJEEV SINGH, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR THE
  RESPONDENTS/STATE)



      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court

passed the following:

                              ORDER

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been filed seeking following relief:

"(A) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call the State Govt.file No.AI/3/20/2002/14-

W.P. No.7479/2011

1 alongwith note sheets and file of Respondent No.2 No.A-5-13/41/2000 and produce it before the Court for perusal in the interest of justice (B) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to set aside the departmental enquiry case which is being illegally continued even after two years from the date of superannuation i.e. 31.10.2001.

(C) That the Respondent be directed to finally decide the pension case immediately and make full payment of pension and Gratuity as well.

(D) That the Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to declare the petitioner entitle for payment of 8% interest on the entire amount of Gratuity and balance amount of pension from the date it is accured till the date of its final payment. (E) Any other relief or order to which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted in the interest of justice, alongwith the costs of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner

while posted as Farm Superintendent, Anori Berkhedi, District

Raisen during period from 05.08.1992 to 29.12.1994, was issued

with a charge sheet on 31.01.1996. The petitioner refuted all the

charges. The Joint Director on his own appointed many enquiry W.P. No.7479/2011

officers one after other, which seriously prejudiced the petitioner to

effectively defend the case and prove his innocence with reference

to the charges. The petitioner superannuated from service on

31.10.2001 from the post of Senior Agriculture Development

Officer, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the charge sheet was initially issued on

31.01.1996 to which reply was submitted by the petitioner. The

petitioner could not get reasonable opportunity to effectively defend

himself against 23 fabricated charges as he was not furnished with

the relevant documents to prepare the defence reply nor the enquiry

officer ensured fair compliance of the mandatory procedure as

prescribed in Rule 14 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control

and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The procedure laid down was not

followed at all. After lapse of sufficient long period since nothing

was done, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present

Writ Petition seeking quashment of the departmental proceedings as

a whole. Learned counsel further submits that even after lapse of 27

years, the departmental proceedings could not be concluded,

therefore, the charge sheet as well as the departmental enquiry

deserves to be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

judgment of this court in the case of Umesh Pratap Singh W.P. No.7479/2011

Chouhan Vs. State of M.P., as reported in 2016 SCC Online MP

5961, wherein it has been held as under :

"8. In the matter of Prafulla Kumar s/o Laxminarayan Chaturvedi Vs. State of MP reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ 204 this court has considered the various judgments on the point and has held as under:-

7. It is the settled position in law that if there is inordinate delay in initiating the Departmental Enquiry and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in issuing the charge-sheet, then it would not be fair to permit the department to continue with the Departmental Enquiry. In the matter of The State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh (supra), the Departmental Enquiry initiated by serving charge-sheet in 1987 in respect of the incident of 1975-76 was challenged on the ground of inordinate delay of over 12 years, and Supreme Court held that:-

"4. The appeal against the order dated 16.12.1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-

1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the W.P. No.7479/2011

officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders an accordingly we dismiss this appeal."

8. In the matter of State of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakishan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154, the Supreme Court took the view that while examining the question of quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay all the relevant factors should be taken into account and disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after the delay, particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay and the Court has to consider the two diverse considerations i.e. the prejudice caused to the charged officer due to the delay and the fact that normally disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their own course as per relevant rules. The Supreme Court in this context in the matter of N.Radhakishan (supra) held that:-

"19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that W.P. No.7479/2011

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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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, W.P. No.7479/2011

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 their course as per relevant rules but then delayed 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."

9. Protracting disciplinary enquiry and keeping a government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned and for the mistake committed by the department in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the employee concerned cannot be made to suffer. The Supreme Court in the matter of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD.T.N.Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 held that:-

"11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry W.P. No.7479/2011

against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and suffering of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer."

10. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sadashiv Shivram Garud and others vs. Food Corporation of India and others, reported in 2003(4) MPLJ 183, considered the same question in the background of the fact that the charge- sheet in that case was issued in 1999 for the grave misconduct committed in 1987-

88. The Departmental Enquiry was initiated after more than 10 years. The Division Bench of this Court held that:-

"9. Having found nothing against the appellants during investigation and having used them as prosecution witnesses, it is not understandable why the Corporation has been instructed to initiate departmental enquiry after W.P. No.7479/2011

more than 10 years, more so, in absence of any finding as to their statements by the Special Judge. The Corporation could, if it wanted, initiate the enquiry, when the lapse was detected, it did not do so.

10. Another face of the question is whether this Court can interfere at this stage. The common threat running through catena of cases is where charge is serious and proveable by large number of documents and witnesses reasonable delay in completion of enquiry is excusable and time can be fixed to complete the same.

While in cases of unexplained delay and charge is not serious, proceedings can be quashed. The Court can entertain the petition and quash the proceedings where there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating and completing the departmental enquiry. However, as said by the Apex Court in N.Radhakishan's case (supra), 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. Each case hasto be examined on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Corporation could initiate the enquiry during 1987-88 or within a reasonable time thereafter. It did not initiate it, which W.P. No.7479/2011

means it is doing it at the directions of the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Under what rules/regulations this direction is issued, is neither here nor there. The Corporation failed to apply its mind independently, therefore, initiation of departmental enquiry against the appellants is grossly delayed. It is neither legitimate nor inconsonance with principles of justice and fair play, when seen in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The appellants could challenge the initiation and continuance of the departmental enquiry/charge- sheet against them at any stage, longer the delay in completing the departmental enquiry more the justification to challenge it. Conclusion that the petitions have been filed after three years, is unsustainable on facts and law.

10-A. The departmental enquiry puts an employee under great strain and stigma. It has serious repercussions on his family as well. Therefore, delinquent employee has a right that the disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously. He is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when the enquiry is unnecessarily initiated and prolonged without satisfactory W.P. No.7479/2011

explanation and without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. He is bound to be prejudiced in such an enquiry and constant strain and agony suffered by him cannot be compensated.

Therefore, such an enquiry would in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

11. Thus, the settled position in law is that the Departmental Enquiry should be initiated without delay and inordinate delay without proper explanation for the same furnishes ground for quashing the same. It is also settled that the Departmental Enquiry once initiated should be completed expeditiously and long delay in completing the enquiry without proper justification can also be ground to quash the enquiry.

9. The common threat running in all these judgments is that if there is an inordinate delay in initiating the departmental enquiry and there is no sufficient and proper explanation for the delay, then the inordinate delay furnishes a ground for quashing the departmental enquiry."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is a

settled legal position that the departmental enquiry ordered while

the employee was in service, cannot be continued and prolonged

beyond two years from the date of superannuation. Learned counsel

for the petitioner referred to the judgments in the case of State of

M.P. Vs. R.L. Ogale and others [2006(1) MPLJ 412 (DB)], D.D.

W.P. No.7479/2011

Jalota Vs. State of M.P. [2010 (3) MPHT 172 (DB)]. He further

relied upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in

the case of Bhagwan Das Swarnakar Vs. State of M.P. as

reported in 2011 MPSLR 427, wherein this Court had quashed the

entire disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

opposed the prayer and submitted that this Court vide order

dt.04.05.2011 had passed an interim order to the effect that "until

further orders, if final order in the departmental enquiry has not

been passed it shall not be pronounced", therefore, in view of the

interim order, the departmental enquiry could not be concluded.

Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the petition

deserves to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the respondents

may be permitted to conclude the departmental enquiry by passing

final order.

6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

vide letter dt.26.10.2007 (Annexure P/3), the petitioner was

informed that the charges No.1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,10,12, 15, 16, 17, 18,

20, 22, 23 have been proved, whereas charges No.2 and 14 have

been partly proved. The petitioner was also advised to furnish

explanation to the enquiry report within a period of fifteen days.

The petitioner had already submitted the explanation/reply on

27.12.2007 (Annexure P/6). Thereafter, the respondents kept silent W.P. No.7479/2011

in concluding the departmental proceedings. The contention of

learned counsel for the respondents that this Court had directed not

to pass the final order vide order dt.04.05.2011 cannot be

countenanced, inasmuch as respondents could have passed the final

order within four long years. The delay is not at all attributable to

the petitioner.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

8. In view of the aforesaid, it is noticed that the charge sheet was

initially issued on 31.01.1996. The enquiry report was submitted in

the year 2007, however, final order was not passed. The enquiry

could not be completed till date which can be attributed as an

inordinate delay on the part of the respondents only. Moreover, it is

settled legal position that the departmental enquiry in respect of a

retired employee is to be concluded within a period of two years

from the date of retirement. Pendency of departmental enquiry for

more than 27 years has caused great prejudice to the petitioner and

had to suffer mental agony as well as monetary loss. Even the retiral

dues of the petitioner have not been settled. This case is squarely

covered by the ratio of judgment in the case of Umesh Pratap

Singh Chouhan (supra). In fact, the respondents in their return in

paragraph No.5 have categorically stated that the enquiry has been

completed and the enquiry report is under submission to the

disciplinary authority for taking action on the said enquiry report.

W.P. No.7479/2011

Once the disciplinary authority takes a decision, it shall be

communicated to the petitioner but it is understood that the

departmental enquiry against the petitioner should be completed

within a period of three months from the date of filing of this report.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge sheet

dt.31.01.1996 (Annexure P/1) deserves to be set aside and is hereby

set aside. As a consequence, the departmental enquiry initiated

against the petitioner also stands terminated. The respondents are

directed to settle the retiral dues including pensionary benefits of

the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of

this order. It is also directed that the petitioner would be entitled for

an interest on delayed payment at the rate of 6% per annum till the

date of actual payment. The petition is accordingly, allowed.

No order as to costs.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Shanu

Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2022.03.23 16:11:30 +05'30'