State
of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan [1998] INSC 210
(7 April 1998)
Sujata
V. Manohar, D.P. Wadhwa Wadhwa,J.
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
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
The
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
Back