9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Staleness of the charge. 2. Compliance with the Tribunal's order. 3. Jurisdiction of the Council of Ministers. 4. Authority of the President to pass the impugned order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Staleness of the Charge: The petitioner argued that the charge against him, related to incidents from March 1981, was stale when issued on 30th December 1993. The Tribunal dismissed this contention, stating that the petitioner should have approached the Tribunal earlier. The Tribunal held that the petitioner's challenge to the charge memo was barred by limitation and res judicata. However, the High Court noted that the petitioner had been promoted twice without any conditions and had obtained vigilance clearance, indicating that the delay in issuing the charge-sheet was unjustified. The High Court referenced cases such as *Hira Nand v. State of Himachal Pradesh* and *State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal* to support its conclusion that unexplained delays in disciplinary proceedings could vitiate the process. 2. Compliance with the Tribunal's Order: The petitioner contended that the order dated 14th August 1997 by the Tribunal, which directed the conclusion of inquiry proceedings within three months, was not complied with, and thus the proceedings should stand abated. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, stating that the penalty order was issued within the stipulated period. The High Court, however, emphasized that the Tribunal's order did not operate as res judicata and that the petitioner was entitled to raise the question of delay in the disciplinary proceedings. 3. Jurisdiction of the Council of Ministers: The petitioner questioned the jurisdiction of the Council of Ministers to make recommendations to the President after their resignation was approved. The Tribunal dismissed this challenge, stating that the Council of Ministers continued to function until alternative arrangements were made. The High Court did not find any constitutional provision barring the Council of Ministers from taking decisions during this period. 4. Authority of the President to Pass the Impugned Order: The petitioner argued that the President, being the appellate authority, should not have passed the penalty order as it deprived him of his right to appeal. The Tribunal dismissed this ground, but the High Court found merit in the petitioner's contention. The High Court referenced the case of *Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank & Ors.*, where it was held that an employee cannot be deprived of the substantive right to appeal. The High Court concluded that the impugned order by the President was invalid as it frustrated the petitioner's statutory right to appeal. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the impugned judgment, allowing the writ petition and awarding costs to the petitioner. The court emphasized the principles of administrative justice, highlighting the importance of timely disciplinary proceedings and the right to appeal.
|
