9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the charge memo after the expiry of the time granted by the Tribunal. 2. Justification of the delay in issuing the charge memo and completing the enquiry. 3. Legitimacy of the promotion granted by the learned single Judge. Analysis of the Judgment: Issue No. 1: Maintainability of the Charge Memo The charge memo dated 25.6.2001 alleged that the Petitioner, while serving as a Section Officer, failed to discharge his duties properly, leading to irregular appointments. The Tribunal directed the P&AR Department to finalize the disciplinary proceedings within four months from 5.5.2003. However, the Department did not seek an extension of time either from the Tribunal or the High Court, resulting in the expiry of the time limit in September 2003. The Department's failure to comply with the Tribunal's directive rendered the charge memo unsustainable. The Court emphasized that adherence to the time limit set by a competent court is mandatory, and failure to seek an extension invalidates the proceedings. Issue No. 2: Justification of Delay The Petitioner argued that there was an unexplained delay of six years in issuing the charge memo and further delay in completing the enquiry. The Court noted that the delay caused significant prejudice to the Petitioner, who was not responsible for the delay. The Department's inaction in seeking an extension of time and the prolonged delay in finalizing the enquiry were deemed unjustifiable, further vitiating the proceedings. Issue No. 3: Legitimacy of Promotion The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition seeking promotion, despite the pending charge memo. The Court upheld this decision, noting that the charge memo was invalid due to the Department's failure to comply with the Tribunal's time limit. The Court also highlighted that similar charges against other officials were dropped or resulted in minor penalties, indicating discriminatory treatment against the Petitioner. The Court confirmed the promotion ordered by the learned single Judge and awarded Rs. 50,000 in compensation to the Petitioner for the mental and physical harassment suffered. Conclusion The Court quashed the charge memo and allowed the writ petition challenging it. The promotion granted by the learned single Judge was upheld, and the Department's appeal against this promotion was dismissed. The Court awarded compensation to the Petitioner and emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial directives and timelines in disciplinary proceedings.
|
