The Hindu : National : Disciplinary action, vitiated by delay, liable to be quashed: Supreme Court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jul 03, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Disciplinary action, vitiated by delay, liable to be quashed: Supreme Court

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against an employee is a ground for quashing the enquiry unless the employer satisfactorily explains it, the Supreme Court has held.

“For example, where the matter is referred to the CBI and there is delay in getting its report or where the charge is of misappropriation and the facts leading to misappropriation come to light belatedly, it can be said that the delay is not fatal. But where the alleged misconduct was known and there was no investigation pending and when no explanation is forthcoming in regard to the delay, the unexplained delay would necessarily cause serious prejudice to the employee and therefore enquiry will have to be quashed,” said a Bench consisting of Justices R.V. Raveendran and P. Sathasivam.

In the instant case, Ranjeet Singh, clerk in the Haryana Health department, was placed under suspension in September 1974 pending enquiry. The suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in November 1974 and he was promoted assistant in July 1978. But in May 1983, he was given a charge sheet and an enquiry officer submitted his report in January 1985.

In December 1992, a show-cause asking why a penalty should not be imposed for misconduct was issued to Mr. Singh and despite his explanation, his rank was reduced. On a suit, the trial court quashed the order. On an appeal from the State government, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the suit and upheld the penalty.

Allowing Mr. Singh’s appeal against this order, the Supreme Court pointed out that the charges did not require a detailed investigation. In view of the unexplained delay, the trial court was justified in holding the enquiry null and void. The High Court ought not to have interfered with its order. “As the matter is old and as we have already found that the delay had vitiated the enquiry, no purpose will be served by remitting the matter. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the trial court,” the Bench said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National