2005 (8) TMI 674 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant? Whether for the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer?

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in initiating disciplinary action against the appellant.
2. Compliance with statutory provisions related to audit in the case.
3. Justification for quashing the charge memo against the appellant.

Issue 1: Delay in initiating disciplinary action against the appellant:
The appellant, a Superintending Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, faced disciplinary action for an irregularity in issuing a sale deed in 1990, with a charge memo issued in 2000. The appellant argued that the department's delay of over 10 years in initiating disciplinary action rendered the proceedings vitiated. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant emphasized the unfairness of the delay and the mental agony caused. The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of expeditious proceedings, balancing the interests of the employee and the administration. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Court quashed the charge memo, ruling in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2: Compliance with statutory provisions related to audit:
The Court examined Sections 118 and 119 of the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961, which mandate annual submission of accounts and audit. It was revealed that these statutory provisions were not adhered to in the case, with the audit report for the transaction in 1990 only finalized in 1994-1995. The Court found the explanation for the delay in the audit process inadequate, especially considering the significant delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. This non-compliance with statutory provisions further supported the decision to quash the charge memo against the appellant.

Issue 3: Justification for quashing the charge memo against the appellant:
The appellant contended that the charge memo issued against them in 2000, for an incident from 1990, was motivated by malice to prevent their promotion. The Court scrutinized the explanations provided by the respondent-Housing Board, finding them unconvincing and as afterthoughts. Considering the mental distress caused by prolonged disciplinary proceedings and the failure to justify the delay, the Court decided to quash the charge memo. The Court emphasized the need to end the protracted proceedings, ensuring the appellant's entitlement to retiral benefits within three months. This decision aimed to prevent further suffering for the appellant due to the flawed disciplinary process.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on the delay in initiating disciplinary action against the appellant, non-compliance with statutory audit provisions, and the justification for quashing the charge memo. The Court's decision to quash the charge memo was based on the unfairness of the delay, lack of convincing explanations, and the need to prevent further mental agony for the appellant.