Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Yogesh Sethi, D'Man Grade-Iii vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. (Through ... on 22 March, 2007
ORDER Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. By virtue of this OA applicant has challenged disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide memorandum dated 28.8.2001. He seeks quashing of the aforesaid memorandum with all consequential benefits.
2. Applicant while working as Draftsman Grade-III in Circle No. 4 from 12.6.1998 till 9.2.2001 had corresponded directly with Chief Engineer without following proper channel was alleged of using the word 'incompetent' in respect of the senior officers. In pursuance of the enquiry applicant had consistently asked for certain documents pertaining to the years 1998-2001 regarding communication. The documents have not been provided to him despite an inspection when conducted on 25.11.2002 the presenting officer has been directed to make available the required documents. An enquiry officer (EO) has now been appointed on 31.5.2006.
3. Shri Anil Singhal, learned Counsel of applicant contended that delay in initiating enquiry of 9 years is inordinate, unexplained and has prejudiced applicant in his defence, as at this remote point of time it would not be feasible for him to procure his defence.
4. Learned Counsel has also contended that failure to supply additional documents despite showing relevance has also vitiated the enquiry. Shri Singhal has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in E. Vedavyas v. Govt. of A.P. and Anr. 1990 (3) SLR 688, to contend that delay has defeated justice and prejudiced the right of applicant. As delay is fatal, it is not expected of applicant to have a computer like memory or to maintain a day-to-day diary in which every small matter is meticulously recorded in anticipation of future eventualities, which cannot be made on the basis of a pre-vision and this has prejudiced the right to effectively defend, which would, in turn is deprivation of a reasonable opportunity in violation of principles of natural justice.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel of respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that it is only the delay on the part of applicant in demanding the documents that the enquiry has been protracted. It is also stated that all the documents have been given to him and despite a direction to submit written statement of defence the documents on inspection, which were available, have also been given to him.
6. Learned Counsel would contend that the EO is now being changed and the enquiry would be finally concluded within a reasonable period of time.
7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material on record.
8. Delay defeats justice. Delay in initiating enquiry and also in completing it prejudices the employee, as by the delay, which is inordinate and unexplained, where no convincing explanation has come-forth after a period of about six years, it would not be feasible and practicable for an employee to have his memory like computer, which would jeopardize his case and prejudice him in his effective defence. In this manner one is deprived of a reasonable opportunity, which is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.
9. Moreover, Central Vigilance Commission vide its guidelines dated 10.8.2004 based on Commission's letter dated 23.2.2000 has stressed on adherence to time limit in processing the disciplinary cases. Accountability for delay in decision-making process has been made misconduct. In Government of India's OM dated 8.1.1971 for holding an enquiry and passing a final order a maximum time limit of three months from the date of submission of the enquiry report has been laid down, which is reiterated in DoP&T OM dated 11.11.1998 and OM dated 20.4.2001 also prescribes speedy disposal of disciplinary cases. In the above view of the matter, the Apex Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (3) SLR 105 ruled that a disciplinary proceeding initiated after number of years and completed thereafter certainly prejudices the right of an employee. Also held by the Apex Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., T.N. Housing Board, 2005 SCC (L&S) 861 that delay of several years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, for want of any explanation of inordinate delay, which is convincing, vitiates the enquiry.
10. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan , though pre-determined principles have not been laid down for conclusion of the proceedings, yet in the facts and circumstances, the Court has to consider relevant factors on balance and weighing them to decide that disciplinary proceedings are abnormal without any explanation, which has an effect of causing mental agony to the concerned and considering the nature of charge and complexity delay is unexplained writ large on the face of it, causing prejudice, the same would vitiate the enquiry.
11. In the above backdrop, the allegations against applicant are neither grave nor involving any corruption or moral turpitude, the aforesaid enquiry despite the letters written by applicant in 1998 was initiated on 28.8.2001. As applicant had asked for documents, yet these documents even after inspection have not been provided to him and we do not find that there has been a specific denial of the documents, rather on 25.10.2002 an order passed by the EO directed presenting officer to furnish the documents to applicant, yet despite this, appointment of the EO in 2006, which is after four years, the enquiry has not been processed and concluded despite expiry of six years and that such a charge on balancing and weighing the equation in the light of N. Radhakishan's case (supra), as we do not find any reasonable convincing explanation on the part of respondents, we have no hesitation to rule that the respondents in concluding the enquiry have not adhered to the time limit. We also do not find any delay attributable on the part of applicant. As the delay is inordinate, it has certainly prejudiced applicant, as at this remote point of time it would not be practicable for him and also possible to procure the defence for such a petty charge and he shall be prejudiced. This would deny him a reasonable opportunity, which would be contrary to the principles of natural justice.
12. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is allowed. Chargesheet dated 28.8.2001 is set aside. Applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs.