Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
N. RADHAKISHAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/04/1998
BENCH:
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 1998
Present:
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa
Ms.K. Amareshwari, Sr. Adv., V.R. Anumolu, T.Anil Kumar,
Advs. with her for the appellant
H.s. Gururaja Rao, Sr. Adv., T.V. Ratnam, Adv. with him for
the Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
WADHWA,J.
Against the judgment dated December 12, 1996 of the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.
No. 2239/96 filed by the respondent, the State of Andhra
pradesh has come up in appeal. By the impugned judgment the
Tribunal allowed the petition of the respondent and directed
that the respondent be promoted to the category of Director
of Town and Country Planning, in the existing vacancy,
ignoring the charge memos -- (1) Memo No. 2732/FL/87/27/MA,
dated July 31, 1995; (2) memo no. 145/B2/93-19/MA, dated
October 27, 1995; and (3) Memo No. 898/B.2/94/M.A dated June
1, 1996, if the respondent is otherwise eligible. The
Tribunal found that the Departmental Promotion committee
met on August 16, 1995 and prepared the panel for the panel
year 1994-95, which was approved by the State Government in
October, 1995. One of the persons included in the panel was
promoted to the category of Director of Town and Country
Planning by G.O.M. dated November 14, 1995. The Tribunal
observed that the panel itself having been prepared on
August 16, 1995 should lapse only on December 31, 1996 and
not on December 31, 1995 as was contended by the State. The
name of the respondent was included in the panel. The
Tribunal, therefore, held that since the panel would lapse
only on December 31, 1996 the respondent was entitled for
promotion before that date. The Tribunal also noticed that
the objection of the State that the panel lapsed on December
31, 1995 was never raised either before it or in the State
against an interim order earlier made by the Tribunal.
Tribunal was concerned with the question if promotion
of the respondent could be denied to him after his name had
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
been included in the panel prepared by the DPC on the ground
that the disciplinary inquiry initiated against him had not
yet been terminated. The respondent had submitted before the
Tribunal that the charge memo dated July 31, 1995 was served
upon him just before the meeting of the DPC only to deprive
him his claim of promotion and further that the charge memos
dated October 27, 1995 and June 1, 1996 being subsequent to
the date of meeting of DPC could not be taken into
consideration for promoting him to the post of Director,
Town and Country Planning. Tribunal noticed that the memo
dated July 31, 1995 related to the incidents that happened
in the years 1978, 1979 and 1984, which were also the
subject-matter of the memo No. 1412 dated December 22, 1987.
While the memo No. 1412 had been issued under Rule 19 of the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963 (for short
"1963 Rules") that dated July 31, 1995 was issued under Rule
20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991
(for short "1991 Rules"). Earlier memo No. 1412 was neither
cancelled nor annulled before issuance of memo dated July
31, 1995 and the Tribunal was of the view that because of
this circumstance memo dated July 31, 1995 could not have
been issued and inquiry should have proceeded under the old
Rules after the Inquiry Officer had been appointed.
State has contended before us that the Tribunal wrongly
assumed that the charges communicated to the respondent on
July 31, 1995 were belated and not only that it quashed that
charge memo but also other charge memos when there was no
challenge to that. Merely on the ground of delay the
Tribunal should not have conferred unwanted benefits on the
respondent. It was submitted that the whole approach of the
Tribunal in giving relief to the respondent has been the the
delay in not concluding the inquiry in furtherance to the
charge memo. It may, however, be noticed that the respondent
did seek setting aside of the memo dated July 31, 1995 and
that dated October 27, 1995. The Tribunal only quashed memo
dated July 31, 1995 and as regards memos dated October 27,
1995 and June 1, 1996, it said that the State might proceed
against the respondent for taking action as per law but the
only rider which the Tribunal put was that these two memos
could not be taken into consideration in implementing the
recommendation of the DPC.
Whether the delay did vitiate the disciplinary
proceedings and if the Tribunal was justified in giving the
directions aforesaid we may refer to the sequence of the
events.
The respondent was appointed as Asstt. Director of Town
Planning in the year 1976. He worked in the Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as
‘Corporation’) in 1979. He was posted as City Planner,
Municipal Corporation of Visakhapatnam in 1981. A report
dated November 7, 1987 was sent by the Director General,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to the
Secretary to the Government, Housing, Municipal
Administration & Urban Development Department, Andhra
Pradesh, Hyderabad, about the irregularities in deviations
and unauthorised constructions in multi-storied complexes in
twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in collusion with
Municipal authorities.
In this report four multi-storied buildings were
mentioned, viz., chandralok Complex, chenoy market
Commercial Complex, Shajahan Apartments and Progressive
Towers. It was stated that in September, 1987 these premises
were inspected and irregularities in deviations and
unauthorised construction were noticed and the relevant
files of the Corporation were also perused. Town planning
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
staff of the Corporation in collusion with the builders
permitted them to flout building bye-laws and the staff
abused their official position or obtaining pecuniary
advantage for themselves and the builders causing loss of
revenue to the Corporation in the shape of house-taxes.
Eleven officers were named including the respondent, who
were said to be responsible for the abnormal deviations and
unauthorised constructions.
On the basis of the report the State issued two both
dated December 12, 1987 (1) in respect of three officials,
viz., Radha Krishna, the then Asstt. City Planner, the
respondent, (2) P.V. Janaki Raman, the then City Planner and
(3) A. Ram Reddy, the then Asstt. City Planner. In the
second memo seven other officers of the rank of Section
Officers and one Assistant City Planner were named. The memo
respecting the respondent and two others said that under
Rule 19(2) of 1963 Rules one sri N. Venugopal Reddy,
Director of Town and country Planning, Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad, was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct a
detailed inquiry against them, who were allegedly involved
and found responsible for the irregularities. The Inquiry
Officer was directed to complete his inquiry within a period
of two months and to submit his report to the Government
with specific findings. As we see this memo is entirely
based on the report of the director General, Anti-Corruption
Bureau. In one of the letters dated January 7,1988 of the
Director General Anti-Corruption Bureau, it is mentioned
that during the course of the checking of the buildings
witnesses were neither examined nor their statements were
recorded and as such there was no part-B file. It was
suggested that action be taken on the basis of the report
already sent to the Government. Rule 19(2) of the 1963 Rules
requires that when it is proposed to impose on a member of a
service any of the penalties specified therein the authority
competent to impose the penalty shall appoint an inquiry
officer or itself hold an inquiry. In every such case the
ground on which it is proposed to take action shall be
reduced to the form of definite charges, which shall be
communicated to the person charged together with a statement
of the allegations on which each charge is based and any of
other circumstance which it is proposed to take into
consideration in passing orders in the case. the charged
employee shall be required within a reasonable time to file
a written statement of his defence and to state whether he
desires an oral inquiry or to be heard in person or both. It
is not necessary to refer to further steps whether he
desires an oral inquiry or to be heard in person or both. It
is not necessary to refer to further steps in the inquiry
proceedings as in the present case we find that till July
31, 1995 article of charges had not been served on the
respondent by which time 1991 Rules had come into force in
supersession of the earlier 1963 Rules. Rule 45 of 1991
Rules provided that repeal shall not affect the previous
operation of 1963 Rules, or any notification or order made,
or anything done, or any action taken thereunder, in any
proceeding under those Rules pending at the commencement of
1991 Rules and shall be continued and disposed of as far as
may be in accordance with the provisions of 1991 Rules. In
1991 Rules procedure for imposing penalties had been changed
by Rules 20 and 21. Now, the Inquiry Officer is top be
appointed after written statement of the defence of the
charged employee has been received. When it is proposed to
hold inquiry against a Government servant, the disciplinary
authority is required to draw up the substance of the
imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
distinct article of charge; a statement of the imputations
of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of
charge containing (a) a statement of all relevant facts (b)
list of documents and (c) list of witnesses. These shall be
served upon the Government Servant, who shall be required to
submit written statement in defence and to state whether he
desires to be heard in person. If on receipt of the written
statement of the defence the disciplinary authority finds
that it is necessary to inquire into the charges, it hall
appoint an Inquiry officer of the purpose , Of course, the
disciplinary authority can itself inquire into the article
of charges, if it so chooses or thinks to do so. Again, we
are not concerned as to how the inquiry officer is to
proceed further in the matter as per 1991 Rules as after the
article of charge was served upon the respondent and his
statement of defence was received there was no progress and
he moved the Tribunal.
Coming back to the state when Shri N. Venugopal Reddy
was appointed as Inquiry Officer we find from the official
file produce before us that he sent various communications
to the Secretary to the Government, Housing, Municipal
Administration & Urban Development Department, to send him
the relevant files. This he went on writing but without any
response from the State Government till Shri N. Venugopal
Reddy retired on attaining the age of superannuation on
September 30, 1991. As to why there was no response to
various letters of the Inquiry Officer from the State
Government the file does not reveal anything. Meanwhile
respondent was promoted as Joint Director of Town and
Country Planning on September 10, 1991. Thereafter, the
State Government appointed Sri P.B. Chowdhary, O.S.D. (legal
cases), Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, as Inquiry
Officer by order dated September 7, 1992. Shri Chowdhary did
not submit the inquiry report and his term of office as
O.S.D. (legal cases) expired on November 20, 1992. Again,
orders were issued on March 6, 1993 appointing Shri A.
Vidyasagar, I.A.S., Additional Commissioner of the
Corporation as Inquiry Officer. He was transferred from his
post on May 25, 1993. Yet again orders mere issued on June
17, 1993 appointing Shri Adityanath Dass, IAS, Additional
Commissioner (Genl.) of the Corporation, as Inquiry Officer.
On August 16, 1994 Shri Dass informed the authorities
concerned that connected files and records have been
received from the appropriate authority "recently" and
promised that he would submit his report as early as
possible. No report was submitted and Shri DAss was
transferred from the post. Thereafter, orders were issued
on march 20, 1995 appointing Shri M.Veerahhadraiah, IAS,
O.S.D. of the Corporation, as Inquiry Officer. At this stage
it was observed that procedure as contained i 1991 Rules
had not been followed. therefore, the order dated March 20,
1995 appointing Shri M. Veerahhadraiah as Inquiry Officer
was cancelled by order dated June 16, 1995. It was at this
stage that articles of charges dated July 31, 1995 were
issued to the respondent.
The Tribunal did not go into the culpability of the
respondent with respect to the charges as contained in memo
dated July 31, 1995 and did not record any finding of guilt
or otherwise on those charges. The Tribunal, however, said
that the memo dated July 31, 1995 related to the incidents
that happened ten years or more prior to the date of the
memo and that there was absolutely no explanation by the
Government for this inordinate delay in framing the charges
and conducting the inquiry against the respondent. The
explanation given by the State that for some reason or the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
other the Inquiry Officer was being changed from time to
time and on that account inquiry could not be conducted, did
not find favour by the Tribunal. it said that there was no
justification on the part of the State now conducting the
inquiry against the respondent in respect of the incidents
at this late stage. The Tribunal noticed that in the
meanwhile respondent had been promoted as Senior Joint
Director of Town and Country Planning notwithstanding the
appointment of Inquiry Officer one after the other after
memo No. 1412 dated December 22, 1987 and plea of the State
the when respondent was promoted as Senior Joint Director of
Town and Country Planning his file relating to inquiry
against him was not brought to the notice of the
administrative section in the year 1991 at the time of
convening the DPC and which resulted in promoting the
respondent, also did not find favour with the Tribunal. The
Tribunal said that both the sections were within the
Municipal Administration and this explanation, now offered,
was without any any merit. The Tribunal while quashing memo
dated July 31, 1995 did not quash the memos dated October
27, 1995 and June 1, 1996 and said that the State, if so
advised, might proceed against the respondent according to
law for taking action against him. What the Tribunal said
about the later two memos was that they should not be taken
into consideration while promoting the respondent in
pursuance to the recommendations of DPC which was held on
August 16, 1995.
A letter dated March 27, 1995 from the Vigilance
Commissioner to the Principal Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department
has been brought to our notice. In this letter the Vigilance
Commissioner writes that after consideration of the facts it
is observed that there was abnormal and avoidable delay in
taking disciplinary action against various categories of
officers, who are alleged to have committed several
irregularities in the matter of permission given for
construction of multi-storied complexes in the Twin Cities
of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The letter says that the
Inquiry Officer has now been appointed without following the
procedure under Rule 20 of 1991 Rules. The Department was
asked to verify if the earlier Inquiry Officers and if not
to take immediate action to frame the charges, first as
provided under Rule 20 of 1991 Rules. The Vigilance
Commissioner advised that the draft charges may be shown to
him before issuance. A reminder was sent by the Vigilance
Commissioner on April 26, 1995. It was thereafter that
charges dated July 31, 1995 were framed ad served upon the
respondent and others.
Four articles of charges have been set out against the
respondent, now working as Joint Director, Office of the
Director of Town and Country Planning, which are as under:-
"ARTICLES OF CHARGES
1) That Sri N. Radha Krishna,
formerly Assistant Town Planner,
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad,
Secunderabad, and presently working
as Joint Director, Directorate of
Town Planning, Hyderabad,. While
working as Assistant Town Planner
during the year 1978 committed
misconduct in as much as he has put
up misleading note with certain
omissions and commissions to the
City Planer recommending permission
for construction of 4th floor, 5th
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
floors and pa subject to certain
conditions at Chandralok Complex,
Secunderabad in favour of M/s.
Swastik Builders in File No.
234/241/7/1/B4/78 in violation of
Building Bye-laws and Zoning
Regulations. He thereby exhibited
his conduct which is unbecoming on
the part of a Government servant
and failed to maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to duty.
Thereby the said Sri N. Radha
Krishna, contravened rule 3 of the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
2) Sri N. Radha Krishna while
working as such has also committed
misconduct in allowing the Cellar
of Chenoy Market Commercial
complex, Secunderabad for using as
godowns by various concerns such as
ELCOM ENGINEERING COMPANY,
HYDERABAD PUMPS LIMITED, E.T. & T.
LIMITED by converting the Cellar
portion as Garrages when the Cellar
was actually meant for parking and
he has also allowed the North-East
Corner of Cellar to convert as
Strong Room for Lockers occupied by
Suman Safe Deposit Lockers Private
Limited. he has further committed
misconduct in allowing to raise the
height of the building to 130’ - 8"
instead of the permitted average
height of the building 92’ wide
whereas permit No. 92/84 dated
11.7.1985 and the sanctioned plan
permitted the average height of the
building is only 92’ i.e., Ground +
7 floors. He thereby exhibited his
conduct which is unbecoming on the
part of a Government servant and
failed to maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to duty.
Thereby the said Sri N. Radha
Krishna contravened rule 3 of the
Andhra Pradesh Civil services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3) Sri N Radha Krishna has also
committed mis-conduct in allowing
the Cellar of Shahjahan Apartments
bearing premises No. 6-2-94,
Khairatabad for being used as shops
and office godowns when it was
supposed to be used as Car Parking
as per Permit No. 24/15 of 1979 dt.
30.3.1979. He thereby exhibited his
conduct which is unbecoming on the
part of a Government Servant and
failed to maintain absolute
integrity and devotion to duty.
Thereby the said Sri N. Radha
Krishna, contravened rule 3 of the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
4) Sri N. Radha Krishna has also
committed misconduct in not
insisting to erect railings on the
eastern side of Progressive Towers
abutting the Rajbhavan Road even
though the condition was stipulated
that no opening should be provided
towards Rajbhavan road as per
permit No. 145/42, dt. 19.3.1981
read with G.O. MS. No. 1065, M.A.
dated 16.9.1981, thus he failed to
maintain absolute integrity and
devotion to duty and thereby
contravened Rules 3(1) of Andhra
Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1964."
It is interesting to note that same Articles of Charges in
verbatim have been served upon Sri A. Sree Rami Reddy also,
now working as Joint Director, office of Director Town and
Country Planning and also 8 other named in the report dated
November 7, 1987 of the Director General, anti corruption
Bureau.
By letter dated August 3, 1995 respondent informed the
disciplinary authority, who issued the Articles of charges,
that he worked as Assistant City Planner in she corporation
from December 6, 1977 to February 16, 1979 in different
circles and that from that it could be seen that only charge
No. 1 related to his period when he was working as Assistant
City Planner in that circle. The respondent wanted copies of
the relevant records in respect of charges contained in the
memo to facilitate him to submit detailed written statement.
In his written statement dated September 25, 1995 the
respondent explained as to how charges 2, 3 and 4 could not
relate to him and subsequently also in his letter to the
Chief Secretary to the government of Andhra Pradesh he said
that charges 2 and 4 related to the period when he was
working in Andhra Pradesh State Scheduled Castes and Tribes
CO- operative Housing Society Federation from February 9,
1979 to September 30, 1981. During the period charge No. 3
related to, the respondent said that he was on deputation at
oxford Polytechnic in United Kingdom from October 11, 1984
to September 26, 1985 for his post-graduation course. On the
first charge his statement of defence was as under :-
"1. With reference to the Charge
No. 1, I submit that I have perused
the file bearing No
234/241/7/1/B4/78 belonging to M/s.
Swastik Constructions in the
Chambers of Deputy Secretary to
Government, M.A. & U.D. Department
on 20.9.1995. As seen from the file
that M/s. Swastik Constructions
have applied for the construction
of 4th 5th and 6th floors over the
existing ground, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd
floors vide their application dt.
18.9. 1978. The proposals have been
examined in detail in pages 6 and 7
of note file at paras 1 to 27
giving clear statement of the F.S.I
permissible and also other Rules
and Regulations for the proposed
construction in the light of the
material available in the file. At
para 23rd the proposals were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
submitted for consideration to the
Higher Authorities as per corrected
plan subject to certain
conditions. As it can be seen from
the endorsement of the then City
Planner sri P.V. Janakiraman on the
right hand side margin "This may be
restricted to 4th and 5th floors
only, let us delete part of 6th
floor. The Then City Planner has
approved the proposed construction
of 4th and 5th floors and part of
6th floor regularising the
deviation imposing the compound
fee of Rs. 1000/- on 1.1.79 and
marked the file to the Deputy
Commissioner. The Deputy
Commissioner in burn approved the
proposal on 10.1.1979. It is clear
from the above note that I did not
put up any misleading note and did
not recommend the proposals
irregularly against any rule and
regulation as alleged in the
charge. The Higher Officers have
also not pointed out any lapses in
the submitted note before approval
of the said proposals and also
regularised the offence by levy of
compounding fee.
Hence, I submit that since I have
not recommended the proposals
irregularly, the charge may kindly
be dropped."
As a matter of fact the disciplinary authority got verified
the facts that what the respondent had said about the
article of charges 2, 3 and 4 was correct and that he could
not be concerned with any deviations or unauthorised
constructions in respect of the buildings mentioned in those
charges. This is by letter dated October 10, 1995 from the
Director of Town and Country Planning to the Principal
Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department, and was in answer to a query
raised by the disciplinary authority from the Director of
Town and Country Planning. On March 15, 1996 Vigilance
Commissioner advised the disciplinary authority "to Process
the explanations of the Accused Officers with reference to
the connected files returned by the A.C.B. vide its report
dated 7.11.1987 and then refer the file to Vigilance
commissioner for further advice". Nothing happened
Everything was at standstill.
It is in April, 1996 that respondent moved the Andhra
Pradesh Appellate Tribunal for relief.
It would, therefore, appear that charges have been
farmed against the respondent merely on the basis of the
report dated November 7, 1987 from the director General,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, which is of general in nature
raising accusing finger on the various officers of the
corporation, but without any reference to the relevant files
and pin pointing if respondent or any other official charged
was at all concerned with the alleged deviations and
unauthorised construction in multi-storied complexes.
It would not be necessary for us to refer to the
charges issued by the memos dated October 27, 1995 and June
1, 1996 as that was not the subject-matter for quashing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
either in the Tribunal or before us.
One of the grounds on which the Tribunal quashed memo
dated July 31, 1995, issued under 1991 Rules, was that
without cancelling the earlier memo No. 1412 dated December
22, 1987, issued under 1963 Rules, the latter memo could not
be issued. We have seen that under rule 45 of 1991 Rules the
inquiry proceedings initiated under 1963 Rules could be
continued even after coming into force of 1991 Rules. it is
correct that inquiry proceedings did progress after issuance
of memo No. 1412 dated December 22, 1987 to the extent that
n inquiry officer was appointed and should have been
concluded under 1963 Rules. If memo of charge has been
served for the first time before 1991 there would have been
no difficulty. However, in the present case it could be only
an irregularity and not an illegality vitiating the inquiry
proceedings inasmuch as after the Inquiry Officer was
appointed under memo No. 1412 dated December 22, 1987, there
had not been any progress. If a fresh memo is issued on the
same charges against the delinquent officer it cannot be
said that any prejudice.
In State of Punjab and others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal
(1995 (2) SCC 570), state of Punjab was aggrieved by the
order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashing memo
of charges against Goyal and also the order appointing
Inquiry Officer to inquire into those charges. In this case
the incident, which was the subject-matter of charge,
happened in December, 1986 and in early January, 1987, when
Goyal was working as supdt. of Nabha High Security Jail. It
was only on July 9, 1992 that memo of charges was issued to
Goyal. He submitted his explanation of January 4, 1993
denying the charges. Inquiry Officer was appointed on July
20, 1993 and soon thereafter Goyal filed writ petition in
the High Court on august 24, 1993. The High Court quashed
the memo of charges on the principal ground of delay of five
and a half years in serving the memo of charges, for which
there was no acceptable explanation. This Court examined the
factual position as to how the delay occurred and if Goyal
had been prejudiced in any way on account of delay. This
Court relied on the Principles laid down in A.r. Antulay vs.
R.S. Nayak (1992 (1) SCC 225), and said, that though that
case pertained to criminal prosecution the principles
enunciated therein were broadly applicable to the pleas of
delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as well.
Referring to decision in a.r. Antulay case this Court said:-
"In paragraph 86 of the judgment,
this Court mentioned the
propositions emerging from the
several decisions considered
therein and observed that
"ultimately the court has to
balance and weigh the several
relevant factors - balancing test
or balancing process - and
determine in each case whether the
right to speedy trial has been
denied in a given case." It has
also been held that, ordinarily
speaking, where the court comes to
the conclusion that right to speedy
trial of the accused has been
infringed, the charges, or the
conviction, as the case may be,
will be quashed. At the same time,
it has been observed that that is
not the only course open to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
court and that in a given case, the
nature of the offence and other
circumstances may be such that
quashing the proceedings may not be
in the interest of justice. In such
a case, it has been observed, it is
open to the court to make such
other appropriate order as it finds
just and equitable in the
circumstance of the case."
In that case this Court said that it was more appropriate
and in interest of justice as well as in the interest of
administration that inquiry which has proceeded to a large
extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time the
Court directed that Goyal should be considered forthwith for
promotion without reference to and without taking into
consideration the charges or the pendency of the inquiry, if
he is found fit for promotion.
It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined
principles applicable to all cases and in all situations
where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary
proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary
proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be
examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. the
essence of the matter is that the court has to take into
consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight
them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and
honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings
should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when
delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay.
The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary
proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he s
not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when
these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his
part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether
delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court
has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on
what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is
unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ
large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how
much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the
charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of
administrative justice that an officer enterusted with a
particular job has to perform his duties honestly,
efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates
from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed.
Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take
its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats
justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer
unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is
proper explanation for the delay in conducting the
disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to
balance these two diverse consideration.
In the present case we find that without any reference
to records merely on the report of the Director General,
Anti-Corruption Bureau, charges were framed against the
respondent and ten others, all in verbatim and without
particularizing the role played by each of the officers
charged. There were four charges against the respondent.
With three of them he was not concerned. He offered
explanation regarding the fourth charge but the disciplinary
authority did not examine the same nor did it choose to
appoint any inquiry officer even assuming that action was
validly being initiated under 1991 Rules. There is no
explanation whatsoever for delay in concluding the inquiry
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
proceedings all these years. The case depended on records
of the Department only and Director General, Anti Corruption
bureau had pointed out that no witnesses ad been examined
before he gave his report. The Inquiry Officers, who had
been appointed on after the other, had just to examine the
records to see if the alleged deviations and constructions
were illegal and unauthorised and then as to who was
responsible for condoning or approving the same against the
bye-laws. It is nobody’s case that respondent at any stage
tried to obstruct or delay the inquiry proceedings. The
Tribunal rightly did not accept the explanations of the
state as to why delay occurred. In fact there was hardly any
explanation worth consideration. In the circumstances the
Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated
July 31, 1995 and directing the state to promote the
respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos
dated October 27, 1995 and June 1, 1996. the Tribunal
rightly did not quash these two later memos.
Accordingly we do not find any merit in the appeal. It
is dismissed with costs.