2019 (6) TMI 1129 - HC - Indian Laws

Delay in the matter of initiation of disciplinary proceedings - whether there is inordinate delay and if so, whether the official respondents offered explanation for the delay? - HELD THAT - The time taken for identifying the delinquent and then arriving at a prima facie conclusion regarding the nature of his involvement cannot be taken as vital and fatal so as to cause prejudice to the delinquent employee or to hold that despite such situation the delay should be taken as sufficient to stifle the proceedings abruptly. In short, in such circumstances and taking into account the period of alleged delay the explanation cannot be said to be unsatisfactory and in fact, in the circumstances obtained in this case, it cannot be taken that there occurred inordinate delay. We do not find any reason to hold that the authorities were not serious in initiating disciplinary proceedings or in pursuing with the charges against the petitioner. The delay occurring in the matter of conduct of disciplinary proceedings since the filing of the Original Application cannot be a reason available to the petitioner to contend against the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Annexure- A1. In short, on the ground of delay the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner invite no interference. Whether the disciplinary proceedings based on Annexure-A1 invites interference and an abrupt termination on any other ground? - HELD THAT - We do not find any reason to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal that they are nothing but imputations, the verity or otherwise of it could be proved only at the final enquiry. At any rate, merely because the imputations are couched in such a manner in paragraph 23, that by itself cannot be a reason to terminate the proceedings abruptly. Still, as an abundant caution we make it clear that those extracted recital shall not be taken as conclusions against the petitioner and they shall be regarded only as prima facie view for the purpose of initiation of disciplinary proceedings and sought to be proved against the petitioner at the enquiry. The charges levelled against the petitioner are very serious. It is taking note of the fact that they pertain to leakage of information regarding the identity of the informant as also the details of the information passed on by the informant to the assessee from a higher officer of the department coupled with the case of the complainant- informant that the leakage of such aspects led to threat to his life that we opined that the charges levelled against the petitioner are very serious. We have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal had very rightly held that it would be too early, in other words premature, to go into such aspects and essentially, the hollowness or otherwise of the allegations could be found out only in appropriately conducted disciplinary proceedings. At any rate, based on the said fact the petitioner cannot claim for quashment of Annexure-A1 memorandum of charges. We do not find any compelling reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.726 of 2015 and to bring about an abrupt termination of disciplinary proceedings by setting aside Annexure-A1 and incidental proceedings. At the same time, we are of the view that no further delay can be brooked in the matter of disciplinary proceedings initiated under Annexure-A1 and hence, it shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abrupt termination of disciplinary proceedings at the charge sheet stage.
2. Premature challenge to the charge sheet.
3. Inordinate delay in initiating and concluding disciplinary proceedings.
4. Validity of the charge sheet and allegations of bias and malice.
5. Impact of promotion on the continuation of disciplinary proceedings.
6. Merits of the charges and the necessity of an enquiry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Abrupt Termination of Disciplinary Proceedings at the Charge Sheet Stage:
The judgment addresses whether disciplinary proceedings can be terminated abruptly when the employee has only been charge sheeted. The court references the decision in *Union of India v. Ashok Kacker*, where it was held that it is premature for a tribunal to quash a charge sheet immediately upon its receipt without the employee replying to it. The court emphasizes that disciplinary proceedings should generally be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules unless there is an inordinate and unexplained delay.

2. Premature Challenge to the Charge Sheet:
The petitioner challenged the initiation of disciplinary proceedings prematurely, seeking quashment of the charge sheet before submitting a written statement of defense. The court, referencing *State of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishnan*, noted that interference is permissible only in cases of inordinate delay or other exceptional circumstances. The tribunal found the original application premature and dismissed it, as it was too early to enter a finding on the merits of the contentions.

3. Inordinate Delay in Initiating and Concluding Disciplinary Proceedings:
The petitioner contended that there was an inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, which should lead to quashing the charge sheet. The court examined the timeline of events and explanations provided by the respondents, concluding that the delay was due to procedural formalities and was not inordinate or unexplained. The court emphasized that the nature of the charges, their complexity, and the reasons for the delay must be considered, and in this case, the delay did not warrant termination of the proceedings.

4. Validity of the Charge Sheet and Allegations of Bias and Malice:
The petitioner argued that the charge sheet was invalid due to bias and malice and that the competent authority had already concluded his guilt. The court found that the recitals in the charge sheet were imputations meant to explain the offending acts and were not final conclusions. The tribunal held that the charges were serious and required a detailed enquiry to determine their verity. The court agreed, stating that the imputation's wording did not justify terminating the proceedings and emphasized the need for a fair enquiry.

5. Impact of Promotion on the Continuation of Disciplinary Proceedings:
The petitioner argued that his promotion to a higher post indicated that the charges were not considered grave enough to warrant withholding promotion. The court rejected this argument, stating that promotion does not preclude disciplinary proceedings and that the seriousness of the charges necessitates an enquiry regardless of the promotion.

6. Merits of the Charges and the Necessity of an Enquiry:
The petitioner attempted to establish that the charges were baseless and ill-founded. The court held that it was premature to judge the correctness of the charges at this stage and that the allegations required a proper enquiry. The tribunal's decision to dismiss the original application was upheld, as the charges were serious and needed to be investigated to maintain clean and honest administration.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the original petition, affirming the tribunal's decision to allow the disciplinary proceedings to continue. The court emphasized the need for a fair and expeditious enquiry and directed that the proceedings be concluded within six months. The petitioner was also instructed to cooperate with the authorities to ensure timely completion of the enquiry.