In a significant ruling by the Delhi High Court, disciplinary proceedings delayed by 17 years have come under scrutiny. The case involves issues surrounding the award of a contract for ‘Jungle Clearance and Construction of Trunk Drains’ to M/s PK Ramiah and Co., with the respondent, an Engineer (Civil), facing penalties. Stay tuned to learn more about the court’s decision and the implications of the lengthy delay in initiating disciplinary actions.
Facts
- The appellant awarded a contract for ‘Jungle Clearance and Construction of Trunk Drains’ to M/s PK Ramiah and Co. in 1982.
- The respondent, who joined the appellant’s services in 1984 as an Engineer (Civil), was involved in scrutinizing bills raised by the contractor.
- The penalty of withholding promotion for one year from the due date was imposed on the respondent, which was affirmed.
Arguments
- Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless he is to blame for the delay or there is a proper explanation
- Court needs to balance the considerations of delay and prejudice
- Lapses in cause of action were considered stale and the proceedings were set aside
- Appellant’s plea of waiting for arbitration proceedings to conclude before issuing charge sheet was not justified
- Appellant took almost four years after the arbitration award to issue charge sheet
- Initiation of disciplinary proceedings after a delay of 17 years was deemed unsustainable
Analysis
- The Court considers the delay in issuing the charge memo to be unsatisfactorily explained and unfair to proceed with the departmental enquiry at this stage.
- Arbitration proceedings were between the appellant and the contractor, where the respondent was not a party.
- The Central Vigilance Commission highlighted possible excess payments in 1987, but no action was taken until 2004.
- A committee report in 1989 found issues with the rate at which work was done and incorrect payments to the contractor.
- The delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings from 1987 to 2000 raises questions on the seriousness of the authority in pursuing charges.
- The delay in issuing the charge sheet to the petitioner after 17 years casts doubt on the intent and efficiency of the disciplinary process.
- The court emphasizes the balance between allowing disciplinary proceedings to follow rules and the need for timely justice, taking into account the nature of charges and complexity.
- The delay in commencing disciplinary proceedings after 17 years prejudiced the respondent.
- Appellant waiting for arbitration proceedings to conclude was not justified.
- No consultation with CVC in 1987-88 regarding keeping disciplinary proceedings in abeyance.
- No merit found in the plea as disciplinary proceedings should have been initiated in 1987 if misconduct was perceived.
Decision
- No costs imposed on the appellant
- Appellant not required to bear any expenses
- Costs not to be borne by the appellant
Case Title: NTPC LIMITED Vs. R S TYAGI (2024:DHC:4009-DB)
Case Number: LPA-390/2024
