DR SRINIVAS S/O NARAYANRAO BIDI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
862-DB
of 2017
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
WAD
IN THE HIGH
COURT OF KARNATAKAAT DHARW
TH
S THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
6
DATED THI
PRESENT
A
THE HON'BL
LE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
I
THE HON'B
BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
)
WRIT PETIT
TION NO.108712 OF 2017 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
DR. SRINIVAS S/O.
AGE: 75 YEARS,
OCC: RETD. MEDIC
R/O: KALIDAS NAG
VIDYA NAGAR, HUB
DIST: DHARWAD.
. NARAYANRAO BIDI,
CAL OFFICER,
GAR,
BBALLI,
TIONER
…PETIT
(BY SRI. DINESH M
M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF
REP. BY ITS SE
H &F. W. DEPA
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU.
2. THE DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF HEAL
SERVICE, ANA
BENGALURU.
3. THE DISTRICT
KARWAR, DIST
4. THE MEDICAL
Digitally signed by
RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
KARNATAKA,
ECRETARY,
ARTMENT,
G,
R,
LTH &FAMILY WELFARE
ND RAO CIRCLE,
HEALTH OFFICER,
T: KARWAR.
OFFICER OF HEALTH
- 2 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
PRIMARY HEAL
KYADGI, KARW
DIST: KARWAR
5. THE MEDICAL
GOVT. HOSPIT
DIST: KARWAR
(AS IN-CHARG
LTH CENTRE,
WAR,
R.
OFFICER,
TAL, BILAGI, KARWAR,
R,
GE MOH OF KYADGI)
6. THE KARNATAK
M.S.BUILDING
REPRESENTED
KA LOKAYUKTA,
, BANGALORE,
BY ITS REGISTRAR.
NDENTS
…RESPON
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S.
SRI. ANIL KALE
THIS WRIT
. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5;
E, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE
ES 226
AND 227 OF CON
STITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE
WRIT IN THE N
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUA
ASHING
IMPUGNED ORDER
R VIDE ANNEXURE–A PASSED BY
Y THE
KARNATKA ADMIN
NISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AT BANG
GALORE
DATED 10.07.201
17 IN APPLICATION NO.2085/20
04 IN
CONFIRMING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.H
& FW
126/MSA/BANGALO
ORE, DATED 20.12.20003 AND T
THE A
CORRIGENDUM DA
ATED 12.01.2004 ANNEXURE – A1 A
AND A2
(BEFORE KAT) PAS
SSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AS
S NULL
AND VOID AND ETC
C.
THIS WRIT PE
ETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MAT
TTER/S
THIS DAY, ORDER W
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
NA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASAN
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARN
NI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BL
LE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
A )
The petitione
er is before the Court calling in ques
tion an
order of the K
Karnataka State Administrative T
Tribunal
(hereinafter referre
ed to as ‘Tribunal’ for short) in App
plication
No.2085/2004 disp
posed on 10.07.2017, by which the T
Tribunal
declines the chall
lenge to the penalty imposed upo
on the
petitioner.
2. Heard t
the learned counsel, Sri. Dinesh M K
Kulkarni
appearing for the
petitioner, learned High Court Gove
rnment
Pleader, Smt. Girija
a Hiremath appearing for respondent
Nos. 1
to 5/State and the
learned counsel, Sri. Anil Kale appea
ring for
respondent No.6/Lo
okayukta.
3. Facts in
n brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitione
er gets appointed as a Medical Off
icer on
25.01.1971. Owing
g to certain omissions and commissio
ons and
allegation of certai
n misappropriation of funds based u
pon an
inspection that was
s conducted in the year 1987, a show
w cause
- 4 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
notice-cum-charge
memo comes to be issued upo
on the
petitioner on 08.07
7.1993, 6 years after the said inspectio
on. The
petitioner then files
s his reply to the charge memo deny
ying the
charges. The enqu
uiry was not conducted by the Sta
te, but
entrusted to the h
hands of the Lokayukta on 27.08.1
994. 5
years thereafter, d
during the subsistence of the enqui
ry, the
petitioner retires
from service on 31.05.1999. Three
e years
thereafter, on 28.0
02.2002, the Lokayukta submits its e
enquiry
report, and upon
the report and the recommendation
of the
st
12.2002, the 1 respondent imposes
Lokayukta, on 20.1
penalty
of recovery of Rs.
.1,26,393/- from the death-cum-reti
rement
gratuity of the pet
itioner towards the alleged losses cau
used to
the government o
on the allegations that were found
to be
proved. Apart from
m the said recovery, 40% of the pen
nsion of
the petitioner was
permanently withheld. The petitione
er then
challenges the sa
aid action of the State in imposin
ng the
aforesaid penalty
y before the Tribunal in App
plication
No.2085/2004. 13
years thereafter, the Tribunal dismis
ses the
challenge. This is c
hallenged before us.
- 5 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
4. The le
earned counsel, Sri.Dinesh M Ku
ulkarni,
appearing for the
petitioner, would vehemently conten
nd that
the charge memo
o was issued against the petitioner
of an
incident that had o
occurred 6 years prior to the said issu
ance of
the charge memo a
and the penalty is imposed in the yea
ar 2002
on a charge mem
mo that was issued in the year 199
93. The
learned counsel w
would submit that it was a joint e
enquiry
conducted against
two people. A perusal at the charge
memo
would indicate no s
specific allegations against each of the
em and
he would submit th
hat it is trite law that if a joint enqui
ry is to
be conducted, the
charges ought to be specific and the
erefore,
on the said vague
e charges, the report of the Enquiry
Officer
pins down the pe
titioner after retirement that he ha
ad mis-
conducted himself
and the charges were held to be pro
oved. It
was not only aga
ainst the petitioner but against the
e other
delinquent governm
ment servant as well, the charges we
ere held
to be proved aga
ainst whom the learned counsel f
for the
respondent Lokayu
ukta submits that a penalty of com
pulsory
retirement was im
posed upon him as he was still in s
service.
Since the petitione
er was retired from service, he was
visited
with a penalty of
40% reduction in pension permanen
tly and
- 6 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
recovery of Rs.1,2
26,393/- from his hands. This ord
er was
challenged before t
the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by a perfu
unctory
order, has reject
ed the application. The learned c
counsel
submits the rejecti
on and the report of the enquiry offi
cer are
all contrary to the
e tenets of principles of natural justi
ice and
contrary to the R
ules. The learned counsel would se
eek the
order of the Tribun
al be quashed, and all consequential b
benefits
be granted to the p
petitioner.
5. The lea
arned High Court Government Pleade
r, Smt.
Girija Hiremath wo
ould submit that the charges were pro
oved in
an enquiry conduc
cted by the Lokayukta. In the light
of the
charges being prov
ved, the penalty that is imposed wo
ould be
commensurate wit
th what the allegations were again
nst the
petitioner and there
efore, would seek dismissal of the peti
ition.
6. The lea
rned counsel Sri.Anil Kale, appearing
for the
Lokayukta, would a
also toe the lines of the learned High
h Court
Government Pleade
er in contending that there is no viola
ation of
the Rules nor princ
ciples of natural justice while conduc
cting an
enquiry. He would a
also refute the submission with regard
d to the
charges not being
g specific against each of the gove
ernment
- 7 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
servants. Therefore
e, he would seek dismissal of the p
petition
defending the orde
r of the Tribunal.
7. We hav
ve given our anxious consideration
to the
submissions of re
spective learned counsel and perus
sed the
material available o
on record.
8. The afo
oresaid narrated facts, links in the c
hain of
events and dates a
are not in dispute. They would not re
equire a
detailed reiteration
. The petitioner joins the service in th
he year
1971 and after 21
1 years is issued a show cause notic
ce cum
charge memo. The
e enquiry is entrusted to the hands
of the
Lokayukta. The Lok
kayukta frames articles of charges wh
hich are
captured in the rep
port of the Enquiry Officer itself. The E
Enquiry
Officer frames the
following issues and holds all the iss
sues to
be proved against t
two Government servants:
“ Point No.1=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.1 against DGOs
and 2;
has
s 1
Point No.2 =
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.2, against DGO
and 2;
has
s 1
Point No.3 =
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No. 3. against DGO
and 2;
has
Os 1
- 8 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
Point No.4=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.4 against DGOs
and 2;
has
s 1
Point No.5 =
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.5 against DGOs
and 2;
has
s 1
Point No.6=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.6 against DCOs 1
2;
has
and
Point No.7=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.7 against DGOs
and 2;
has
s 1
Point No.8=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.8 against DGOs
and 2;
has
s 1
Point No.9=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.9 against DGOs
and 2;
has
s 1
Point No.10=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.10 against DGO
and 2;
has
s 1
Point No.11=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.11 against DGO
and 2;
has
s 1
Point No.12=
Whether Disciplinary authority
proved charge No. 12 against DGO
and 2;
has
Os 1
Point No.13=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.13 against DGO
and 2;
has
s 1
Point No.14=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.14 against DGO
and 2;
has
s 1
- 9 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
Point No.15=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
Proved charge No.15 against DGO
and 2; Point No.15:
has
s 1
Point No.16=
Whether Disciplinary Authority
proved charge No.16 against DG0
and2;
has
s 1
Point No.17:
What order? ”
9. The alle
egation was that in an inspection th
hat was
conducted on 31.0
07.1987, it is noticed that to 6 pers
sons, a
certain amount wa
as paid and they were not recovere
ed. The
non-recovery of t
he amount had caused loss to the
e State
Government. If t
the inspection report was availab
ble on
31.07.1987, nothin
ng stopped the State from issuing a
charge
memo immediately
y thereafter, but it chose to issue a
charge
memo after 6 year
rs of the said inspection report. The
charge
memo issued afte
er 6 years also did not contain
specific
allegations against
each of the government servants. I
It is an
admitted fact that
the charge is an amalgam; so is the
e report
an amalgam of th
he allegations against both the gove
rnment
servants. But the
penalties that are imposed are differ
rent for
the ostensible reas
son that the petitioner had by then
retired
from service and t
the other person against whom com
pulsory
retirement was im
mposed was yet to retire from servic
ce. The
- 10 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
enquiry itself goes
on for about 8 years and finally for a
charge
memo that was iss
sued on 08.07.1993, the penalty is im
mposed
on 20.12.2002. Th
erefore, the trial is this way. The ins
spection
report of the year
r 1987 forms the fulcrum of the cha
arge on
08.07.1993. The e
enquiry is conducted for 9 long yea
rs. The
enquiry itself again
nst the petitioner or the others has g
gone on
for more than 5 ye
ears. The petitioner then is visited w
with the
following penalty:
_____________________
PÀæªÀÄ C¢üPÁj / £ËP
¸ÀASÉå
1) qÁ. J¸ï.J£ï. ©
¤ªÀÈvÀÛ ªÉÊzÁå¢üÃPÁ
_________________________________________
_______
PÀgÀgÀ «¢ü¹gÀĪÀ zÀAqÀ£É
©r. PÀ£ÁðlPÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ
Áj ¤AiÀĪÀÄ-214 gÀrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ £ÀµÀÖ G
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ. 1,26,393.33
®PÀëzÀ E¥ÀàvÁÛgÀÄ ¸Á«gÀzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ £ÀÆgÀ
ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄƪÀvÀÛ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¥ÉʸÉUÀ¼ÀÄ
¤ªÀÈvÀÛ ªÀåzÁå¢üÃPÁjAiÀÄÄ r.¹.Dgï.eÉ ª
£ÀUÀ¢ÃPÀgÀt¢AzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅz
PÀrªÉÄ ©zÀÝ°è ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ f¯Áè DgÉÆ
PÀÄ.PÀ.C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¹«¯ï zÁªÉ ºÀÆr
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹zÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj ª
¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÀ «±ÁæAw ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ°è ±
gÀµÀÖ£ÀÄß ±Á±ÀévÀªÁV PÀrvÀUÉƽ¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
______________________________________
UÀ¼À,
GAlÄ
3 (MAzÀÄ
gÀ vÉÆA¨sÀvÀÛ
Ä ªÀiÁvÀæ)
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀeÉ
zÀÄ. E£ÀÄß
ÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
r ªÀ¸ÀÆ°
ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁj
±ÉÃPÀqÀ 40
_______
___________________
The afore-not
ted charge memo and order of pena
lty are,
throughout, an ama
algam of the allegations.
- 11 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
10. In our c
considered view, an inspection report
t of the
year 1987 could
not have waited for 6 years to dr
rop the
allegations agains
t the petitioner. There is no sp
eck of
explanation while is
ssuing the charge memo as to why th
e State
kept quiet for 6 ye
ears and then entrusted the enquiry
to the
hands of the Lokay
ukta that too in the year 1994. Theref
fore, on
this sole ground of
delay, the enquiry that is conducted
against
the petitioner would
d stand vitiated.
11. The o
ther ground is with regard to
o non-
particularization of
allegations against each of the gove
rnment
servants. It is set
ttled principle of law that there can
nnot be
vague charges aga
ainst each of the government servan
nts, but
there should b
be particularization of charges.
. The
particularization is
not to be inferred, but it should be
e in the
charge memo that
is issued against the delinquent emp
ployees
in the departmenta
al enquiry. The charge memo so issue
ed is an
amalgam as ob
served hereinabove and there
is no
particularization of
f allegations against the petitioner
or the
other person. Thus
s, both these issues with regard to de
lay and
non-particularizatio
on of allegations stand completely an
nswered
- 12 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
by the Apex Cou
urt in the case of STATE OF AN
NDHRA
1
ADHAKISHAN , wherein it is held as
PRADESH v. N. RA
under:
“
…. …. ….
18.In S
[(1995) 2 SC
29 ATC 546]
order of the
quashing me
the order app
those charge
subject-matter
and in early Ja
Superintenden
on 9-7-1992 t
He submitted
charges. Enqu
and soon ther
Court on 24-8
memo of cha
of five and a
charges, for
explanation.
position as to
had been pr
delay. This C
in A.R. Antul
1992 SCC (Cr
pertained to
enunciated t
plea of delay
as well. Refe
[(1992) 1 SC
said: (SCC p.
State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goy
CC 570 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 541 : (1995
yal
5)
he
na
State of Punjab was aggrieved by th
e High Court of Punjab and Haryan
emo of charges against Goyal and als
so
pointing Enquiry Officer to inquire int
es. In this case the incident, which was th
to
he
86
r of charge, happened in December 198
anuary 1987, when Goyal was working a
nt of Nabha High Security Jail. It was on
as
nly
hat memo of charges was issued to Goya
al.
he
93
gh
he
his explanation on 4-1-1993 denying th
uiry Officer was appointed on 20-7-199
eafter Goyal filed writ petition in the Hig
8-1993. The High Court quashed th
arges on the principal ground of dela
ay
a half years in serving the memo o
r which there was no acceptab
of
le
al
yal
This Court examined the factu
o how the delay occurred and if Goy
rejudiced in any way on account o
of
wn
ourt relied on the principles laid dow
ay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225
ri) 93] and said that though that cas
o criminal prosecution the principle
5 :
se
es
he
herein were broadly applicable to th
y in taking the disciplinary proceeding
gs
se
erring to decision in A.R. Antulay cas
CC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] this Cou
rt
576, para 11)
“I
this Co
emergin
conside
‘ultimat
In paragraph 86 of the judgment,
ourt mentioned the propositions
ng from the several decisions
red therein and observed that
tely the court has to balance and
1
(1998) 4 SCC 154
- 13 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
weigh
balancin
determi
speedy
case’. It
speakin
conclusi
accused
the con
quashed
observe
open to
the na
circums
the proc
of justi
observe
such oth
and equ
case.”
the several relevant factors —
ng test or balancing process — and
ne in each case whether the right to
trial has been denied in a given
t has also been held that, ordinarily
g, where the court comes to the
ion that right to speedy trial of the
d has been infringed, the charges, or
viction, as the case may be, will be
d. At the same time, it has been
ed that that is not the only course
o the court and that in a given case,
ature of the offence and other
stances may be such that quashing of
ceedings may not be in the interest
ice. In such a case, it has been
ed, it is open to the court to make
her appropriate order as it finds just
uitable in the circumstance of the
In that
appropriate a
in the intere
which had pr
to be comp
directed that
for promotio
taking into
pendency of
promotion.
case this Court said that it was mor
and in the interest of justice as well a
est of administration that the enquir
re
as
ry
ed
roceeded to a large extent be allowe
leted. At the same time the Cou
t Goyal should be considered forthwit
on without reference to and withou
rt
th
ut
he
consideration the charges or th
f the enquiry, if he is found fit fo
or
19. It
predetermined
situations wh
disciplinary pr
disciplinary pro
has to be exa
that case. The
to take into co
balance and w
interest of cle
disciplinary pr
after delay pa
there is no ex
employee ha
against him a
is not possible to lay down an
d principles applicable to all cases and in a
ny
all
he
he
ere there is delay in concluding th
roceedings. Whether on that ground th
oceedings are to be terminated each cas
amined on the facts and circumstances
se
in
as
essence of the matter is that the court ha
onsideration all the relevant factors and
to
he
he
weigh them to determine if it is in th
ean and honest administration that th
oceedings should be allowed to termina
te
nd
rticularly when the delay is abnormal an
xplanation for the delay. The delinquen
nt
gs
s a right that disciplinary proceeding
are concluded expeditiously and he
is
- 14 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
not made t
monetary lo
prolonged wi
the proceedin
has vitiated t
has to consid
and on what
delay is une
employee is
also be see
authority is s
its employe
administrativ
with a parti
honestly, eff
rules. If he d
penalty pr
proceedings
as per releva
Delay cause
unless it can
delay or whe
delay in con
Ultimately, t
diverse consi
to undergo mental agony and als
oss when these are unnecessari
ithout any fault on his part in delayin
so
ly
ng
ngs. In considering whether the dela
ay
the disciplinary proceedings the cou
der the nature of charge, its complexit
rt
ty
he
account the delay has occurred. If th
explained prejudice to the delinquen
nt
writ large on the face of it. It cou
n as to how much the disciplinar
serious in pursuing the charges again
ee. It is the basic principle o
ve justice that an officer entruste
ld
ry
st
of
ed
cular job has to perform his dutie
ficiently and in accordance with th
es
he
eviates from this path he is to suffer
rescribed. Normally, disciplinar
should be allowed to take their cours
a
ry
se
nt rules but then delay defeats justic
es prejudice to the charged office
e.
er
he
he
gs.
wo
be shown that he is to blame for th
en there is proper explanation for th
nducting the disciplinary proceeding
the court is to balance these tw
iderations .
20.In t
any referenc
the Director
charges were
ten others,
particularisin
officers charg
respondent. W
He offered ex
the disciplinary
did it choose
assuming that
the 1991 Rule
for delay in c
these years.
Department o
Corruption Bur
been examine
Officers who h
the present case we find that withou
ce to records merely on the report o
ut
of
u,
nd
r General, Anti-Corruption Burea
e framed against the respondent an
, all in verbatim and withou
ng the role played by each of th
ut
he
ged. There were four charges against th
With three of them he was not concerne
he
ed.
planation regarding the fourth charge b
y authority did not examine the same n
e to appoint any enquiry officer eve
ut
or
en
t action was validly being initiated und
er
er
all
s. There is no explanation whatsoeve
concluding the enquiry proceedings a
The case depended on records of th
only and the Director General, Ant
reau had pointed out that no witnesses ha
he
ti-
ad
d before he gave his report. The Enqui
ad been appointed one after the other ha
ry
ad
- 15 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
just to exam
deviations a
unauthorised
condoning or a
It is nobody
stage tried
proceedings.
the explanat
occurred. In
worth consid
Tribunal wa
memo dated
promote the
the DPC igno
6-1996. The
two latter me
mine the records to see if the allege
ed
nd
for
ws.
and constructions were illegal an
and then as to who was responsible f
approving the same against the bye-law
y's case that the respondent at an
ny
to obstruct or delay the enquir
ry
pt
ay
on
he
ge
The Tribunal rightly did not accep
tions of the State as to why dela
fact there was hardly any explanatio
deration. In the circumstances th
s justified in quashing the charg
31-7-1995 and directing the State t
respondent as per recommendation o
oring memos dated 27-10-1995 and 1
to
of
1-
se
Tribunal rightly did not quash thes
emos. ”
(Emphasis supplied
d)
The Apex Court
in the afore-quoted judgment hold
ds that
non-particularizatio
on of charges would vitiate the
entire
proceedings agains
st the delinquents. In the light of our
finding
that there is non-
-particularization of charges and the
ere has
been delay in issu
uing the charges, the report of the e
enquiry
officer or resultant
penalty that is imposed would tumble
down.
12. The Ape
ex Court in its later judgment in the
case of
2
N v. MD, T.N. HOUSING BOARD rei
P. V. MAHADEVAN
iterates
that delay would v
vitiate the enquiry. The Apex Court ob
bserves
as follows:
2
2005 (6) SCC 636
- 16 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
“
…. …. ….
5. In th
4 SCC 154 : 1
appointed as As
1976. A report
General, Anti-Co
to the Secreta
Administration
Pradesh, Hydera
unauthorised co
twin cities of H
Municipal Autho
issued two mem
officials includi
Assistant City P
of charges had
Tribunal, how
1995 related
more prior to
absolutely no
inordinate del
the enquiry ag
no justification
the enquiry a
incidents at th
observed as fo
he second case of N. Radhakishan [(1998
1998 SCC (L&S) 1044] the respondent wa
8)
as
ar
or
ad
ssistant Director of Town Planning in the yea
t dated 7-11-1987 was sent by the Directo
orruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderaba
ary to the Government, Housing, Municip
al
ra
nd
he
and Urban Development Department, Andhr
abad about the irregularities in deviations an
onstructions in multi-storeyed complexes in th
th
te
ee
en
yderabad and Secunderabad in collusion wit
orities. On the basis of the report, the Stat
mos both dated 12-12-1987 in respect of thre
ng the respondent Radhakishan, the the
lanner. In this case, till 31-7-1995 the article
d not been served on the respondent. Th
wever, held that the memo dated 31-7
es
he
7-
or
as
to incidents that happened ten years o
the date of the memo and that there wa
explanation by the Government for th
ay in framing the charges and conductin
gainst the respondent and that there wa
is
ng
as
ng
he
n on the part of the State now conductin
against the respondent in respect of th
his late stage. This Court, in para 19, ha
ollows: (SCC p. 165)
as
“1
any pre
all case
is dela
proceed
disciplin
termina
on the
case. Th
court ha
relevant
them to
clean a
disciplin
to term
the del
explana
employe
proceed
expediti
undergo
loss w
19. It is not possible to lay down
determined principles applicable to
s and in all situations where there
y in concluding the disciplinary
dings. Whether on that ground the
nary proceedings are to be
ted each case has to be examined
facts and circumstances in that
he essence of the matter is that the
as to take into consideration all the
t factors and to balance and weigh
o determine if it is in the interest of
nd honest administration that the
nary proceedings should be allowed
inate after delay particularly when
ay is abnormal and there is no
ation for the delay. The delinquent
ee has a right that disciplinary
dings against him are concluded
iously and he is not made to
o mental agony and also monetary
when these are unnecessarily
- 17 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
prolong
delaying
whether
disciplin
conside
complex
has occ
prejudic
writ larg
seen as
authorit
charges
basic p
that an
job has
efficient
rules. If
suffer
disciplin
to take
but the
causes
unless i
for the
explana
disciplin
court is
conside
ed without any fault on his part in
g the proceedings. In considering
r the delay has vitiated the
nary proceedings the court has to
r the nature of charge, its
xity and on what account the delay
curred. If the delay is unexplained
ce to the delinquent employee is
ge on the face of it. It could also be
s to how much the disciplinary
ty is serious in pursuing the
s against its employee. It is the
principle of administrative justice
officer entrusted with a particular
s to perform his duties honestly,
tly and in accordance with the
f he deviates from this path he is to
a penalty prescribed. Normally,
nary proceedings should be allowed
their course as per relevant rules
en delay defeats justice. Delay
prejudice to the charged officer
t can be shown that he is to blame
delay or when there is proper
ation for the delay in conducting the
nary proceedings. Ultimately, the
s to balance these two diverse
rations.”
This Co
explanation w
occurred. In th
Tribunal was
dated 31-7-19
respondent as
memos dated
the appeal fil
dismissed.
ourt held that there was hardly an
worth consideration as to why the dela
ny
ay
he
mo
he circumstances, this Court held that th
justified in quashing the charge mem
995 and directing the State to promote th
he
ng
s per recommendation of the DPC ignorin
27-10-1995 and 1-6-1996. Accordingly
ed by the State of Andhra Pradesh wa
y,
as
6. Mr. P
affidavit filed b
stated in para
with mala fid
memo against
incident of iss
which was 10
memo and th
memo was th
being promote
Housing Board
Prabhakar also invited our attention to th
he
y the appellant in support of his case. It
a 14 of the affidavit that the responden
de intention issued the present charg
is
nt
ge
ed
t the appellant even though the allege
suance of sale deed was of the year 1990
0,
ge
ge
0 years prior to the issuance of charg
hat the very reason for issuing charg
hat the appellant could be detained from
m
he
ed to the post of Chief Engineer of th
d.
- 18 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
7.The v
raised in this
stated that the
the disciplina
memo would
vitiated and th
the inordinate
issuance of ch
quashing the p
very same ground has been specifical
s appeal before this Court wherein it
ly
is
ng
ge
e delay of more than 10 years in initiatin
ary proceedings by issuance of charg
render the departmental proceeding
hat in the absence of any explanation fo
e delay in initiating such proceedings o
gs
or
of
or
harge memo would justify the prayer fo
proceedings as made in the writ petition.
8. Our
affidavit filed by
some explanatio
all convincing. I
time that the
disciplinary acti
the year 2000, c
half of 1994-95.
attention was also drawn to the counte
y the respondent Board in this appeal. Thoug
on was given, the explanation offered is not a
It is stated in the counter-affidavit for the fir
r-
gh
at
st
ch
irregularity during the year 1990, for whic
on had been initiated against the appellant
came to light in the audit report for the secon
.
in
nd
9. Sectio
Housing Board
thus:
ons 118 and 119 of the Tamil Nadu Stat
te
ad
Act, 1961 (Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1961) rea
“1
Board s
abstract
expendit
118. At the end of every year, the
shall submit to the Government an
of the accounts of its receipts and
ure for such year.
1
examined
such aud
this beha
19. The accounts of the Board shall be
d and audited once in every year by
ditor as the Government may appoint in
alf.”
10. Sect
the abstracts o
Section 119 rel
statutory provis
instant case the
expenditure oug
the succeeding
ultimately relea
the delay in fina
in view of the a
of 1961. It is n
service. There is
the respondent
departmental d
learned Senior
submission that
irregularities by
tion 118 specifically provides for submission
of
nd
wo
f the accounts at the end of every year an
lates to annual audit of accounts. These tw
sions have not been complied with at all. In th
he
he
e transaction took place in the year 1990. Th
ght to have been considered in the accounts
of
as
year. In the instant case the audit report wa
ased in 1994-95. The explanation offered fo
or
ny
17
alising the audit account cannot stand scrutin
above two provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 1
now stated that the appellant has retired fro
m
of
ng
ni,
His
s also no acceptable explanation on the side
explaining the inordinate delay in initiatin
isciplinary proceedings. Mr R. Venkataraman
Counsel is appearing for the respondent. H
t the period from the date of commission of th
y the appellant to the date on which it came t
he
to
- 19 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
the knowledge
the purpose of
the part of the
against the app
taken by the re
is not convincin
explanation for
of the Housing Board cannot be reckoned fo
or
on
ascertaining whether there was any delay o
e Board in initiating disciplinary proceeding
pellant has no merit and force. The stand no
espondent in this Court in the counter-affidav
gs
ow
vit
me
ng and is only an afterthought to give som
the delay.
er the circumstances, we are of th
11.Unde
opinion that a
with the depa
time will be ve
higher govern
and disputed
agony and d
protracted dis
employee sho
interests of t
interest and a
in the minds
stage, it is nec
end to the enq
enough and
proceedings. A
sufferings of
disciplinary pr
punishment.
department
disciplinary pr
made to suffer
he
llowing the respondent to proceed furthe
artmental proceedings at this distance o
er
of
ery prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping
a
on
ment official under charges of corruptio
integrity would cause unbearable menta
distress to the officer concerned. Th
al
he
sciplinary enquiry against a governmen
nt
he
uld, therefore, be avoided not only in th
the government employee but in publ
ic
ce
lso in the interests of inspiring confidenc
of the government employees. At th
cessary to draw the curtain and to put a
quiry. The appellant had already suffere
is
an
ed
more on account of the disciplinar
As a matter of fact, the mental agony an
ry
nd
ed
he
he
he
be
the appellant due to the protracte
roceedings would be much more than th
For the mistakes committed by th
in the procedure for initiating th
roceedings, the appellant should not b
r.
(Emphasis su
upplied)
The Apex Court in
n the afore-quoted judgment observe
es that
delay can be taken
n note of to quash the proceedings, a
s delay
would undoubtedly
cause prejudice to the employee.
13. In the
light of the issue standing com
mpletely
answered by the
e Apex Court in the afore-quote
ed two
judgments, the o
order of the Tribunal would undo
ubtedly
become unsustaina
able. As the Tribunal does not reco
ord any
- 20 -
862-DB
of 2017
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16
WP No. 108712 o
CNR: KAHC0200251820
017
reason except qu
oting the charge memo and holdin
ng and
observing that the
re is no consideration of the delay th
hat has
occurred in issuanc
ce of the charge memo, which is 6 yea
rs from
the date of the ins
spection report and the non particula
rization
of charges. In that
t light, the petition deserves to succee
ed. The
petitioner being a
an octogenarian and proceeding t
towards
becoming a nonage
enarian, is to be granted the benefits
s of the
quashment of the o
order.
14. For the
afore-said reasons, the following:
ORDER
i) The
e writ petition is allowed ;
ii) The
e impugned order dated 10.07.2
2017
pas
ssed in Application No.2085/2004 by
the
Tri
bunal is quashed.
iii) The
e petitioner shall become entitled to
o all
con
nsequential benefits that would flow f
from
the
e order.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
JTR/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2