9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the quashing of charge sheets dated 12th November 1999 and 11th October 2004. 2. Delay in the disciplinary proceedings and its impact on the respondent's career and promotions. 3. Procedural irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings and adherence to CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Summary: Issue 1: Legality of the Quashing of Charge Sheets The petitioners challenged the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which quashed the charge sheets dated 12th November 1999 and 11th October 2004 against the respondent. The CAT directed the petitioners to open the sealed cover concerning the respondent's promotion and, if found fit, to promote him with all consequential benefits. The CAT concluded that the respondent was given a raw deal by prolonging the departmental inquiries without any cogent and rationally acceptable explanations, causing great prejudice to the respondent. Issue 2: Delay in the Disciplinary Proceedings The CAT observed that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were unduly delayed, spanning over a decade, which caused significant prejudice to the respondent. The inquiry reports for the charge sheets were completed on 29th September 2008 and 26th December 2008, respectively. The CAT noted that the delay was not satisfactorily explained by the petitioners, and the respondent had suffered immensely due to the inordinate delay, as he was denied promotions and had to wait for final orders on the charge sheets. Issue 3: Procedural Irregularities The CAT found that the disciplinary proceedings were hurriedly concluded by the petitioners in violation of procedural requirements. The CAT noted that the respondent was not given a chance to represent his case properly against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The CAT also observed that the charges against the respondent were not of a serious nature involving moral turpitude or mala fides but were related to procedural irregularities. The Enquiry Officer had found that the charges were either not proved or only technically proved without substantial evidence. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the CAT's decision, noting that the disciplinary proceedings were unduly delayed without satisfactory explanation, causing significant prejudice to the respondent. The charges were primarily related to procedural irregularities without any evidence of moral turpitude or mala fides. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000 on the petitioners for the hardships and miseries suffered by the respondent.
|
