In a significant case brought before the Delhi High Court, the importance of fairness and timeliness in departmental enquiries was underscored. The judgment focuses on ensuring justice for all parties involved, as highlighted by the petitioner, who is almost 74 years old, and the respondent. Stay tuned to discover how this ruling sets a precedent for future legal proceedings.
Facts
- The petitioner approached the Court with a grievance, but no interim stay was granted after notice was issued on 30.05.2019.
- Due to the lack of interim stay, the respondents were allowed to initiate a departmental enquiry based on a charge memo dated 30.04.2008.
- The petitioner was suspended on 05.03.2008 and a charge memo with seven articles of charges, mainly related to the validity of the PhD degree, was issued on 30.04.2008.
- None of the charges in the memo involved financial irregularities.
- The charge sheet was issued before the petitioner’s superannuation, allowing for the continuation of departmental proceedings even after superannuation.
Arguments
- The charges against the petitioner do not involve any financial irregularity or serious misconduct.
- The petitioner retired almost fourteen years ago.
- No enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner due to the absence of a stay order.
- The respondent waited for the outcome of the writ petition before initiating any enquiry.
- The petitioner, now 74 years old and visually impaired, has not been subjected to any enquiry so far.
Analysis
- Both parties agree that petitioner is almost 74 years old and charges are not related to financial irregularity or serious misconduct.
- More than 16 years have passed since the charge sheet was issued.
- Apex Court’s decision in Prem Nath Bali case highlights the duty of the employer to conclude departmental enquiries swiftly.
- Despite no stay since 15.11.2016, the respondent has not proceeded with the enquiry.
- The court is of the view that allowing an enquiry against the petitioner at this stage would cause grave hardship and prejudice, as witnesses for charges from 2007 and 2008 may not be available.
- Despite the suspension of the petitioner in 2008, the enquiry was kept in abeyance only due to the petitioner approaching the Court.
- The Court restrains the employer from proceeding with the enquiry at this stage but does not grant the petitioner any consequential benefits from suspension to superannuation.
- The period from the suspension to superannuation will be considered for computing terminal benefits.
- Employers, whether state or private, are encouraged to conclude departmental enquiry proceedings within a reasonable time, ideally within six months as an outer limit.
- A reasonable extension of up to a year may be considered in unavoidable circumstances for concluding enquiry proceedings.
- In this case, the employer chose to await the outcome of the present petition despite no stay on disciplinary proceedings; therefore, proceeding with the enquiry at this late stage is deemed inappropriate.
Decision
- The writ petition has been allowed by setting aside the impugned decision.
- The petitioner, who received subsistence allowance from the date of suspension till superannuation, will not receive any further benefits for this period.
- The period of suspension will be included in the petitioner’s total service.
- The petition is disposed of as per the above terms.
- The terminal dues of the petitioner should be released within six weeks from today.
Case Title: SARPAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (2024:DHC:3702-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-6366/2019
