Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalip Singh vs Food Corporation Of India & Another on 5 December, 2013
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No.840 of 1994 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.840 of 1994
Date of decision:05.12.2013
Dalip Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
Food Corporation of India & another ......Respondents
CWP No.562 of 1994
Date of decision:05.12.2013
R.B.Sharma ......Petitioner
Versus
Food Corporation of India & others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.J.S.Wasu, Advocate, for the petitioner
(in CWP No.840 of 1994).
Mr.R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner
(in CWP No.562 of 1994).
Mr.Rishi Tandon, Advocate, for
Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondents.
*****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.(Oral)
1. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.840 and 562 of 1994, involving common questions of law. To dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP No.840 of 1994 titled Dalip Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India & another.
2. Challenge in the present writ petition is for quashing chargesheet dated 09.11.1993 (Annexure P1) which was issued to the petitioner on the ground that during his posting at Jalalabad, District Ferozepur, during the year 1984, he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty while despatching wheat stocks to Tadepalligudem on 23.07.1984. Accordingly, as per the article Sailesh Ranjan of charges, a transit loss of 77.567.260 metric tons was detected. In pursuance of 2014.01.08 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.840 of 1994 -2- the said chargesheet, the petitioner submitted his reply and placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh & another 1990 (Sup) SCC 738, that the said charge is highly belated and deserves to be withdrawn. Reliance was also placed upon other judgments passed in CWP No.17429 of 1991 titled as Er.Narinder Singh Brar Vs. State of Punjab & others decided on 06.02.1992 (Annexure P4) whereby a Division Bench of this Court had quashed similar charges on account of delay of 6 years in framing charges, placing reliance upon Bani Singh's case (supra).
3. Writ petition was admitted on 21.01.1994 and further proceedings were stayed and thus, no proceedings have apparently taken place before the departmental authorities.
4. In the written statement, plea taken is that there is alternative remedy and only a chargesheet has been issued which was after commuting the loss, as submitted by the contemner, on the basis of documents and further, that the petitioner would be at liberty to point out the illegality or irregularity in the chargesheet. The written statement is silent on the point of inordinate delay in the issuance of the chargesheet and no explanation has been given by the Corporation.
5. The incident in the present case pertains to the year 1994 and a period of 29 years has expired since then. The chargesheet was issued only after 9 years of the said incident. The petitioner also approached this Court by filing CWP No.13008 of 1993 reported as Dalip Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India 1995 (4) SCT 309 and was successful in getting quashed another chargesheet, which had been issued to him after a lapse of 9 years by the departmental authorities, on the ground of delay by the Division Bench. The Apex Court in State of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakishan 1998 (4) SCC 154 has held as under: Sailesh Ranjan
2014.01.08 11:28 "It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.840 of 1994 -3- 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 weigh 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 is 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 entrusted 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 blame or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
6. Thereafter, in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board 2005 (6) SCC 636, the Apex Court observed as under:
"Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be Sailesh Ranjan avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in 2014.01.08 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.840 of 1994 -4- public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefit shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs.
Appeal allowed"
7. Accordingly, keeping in view the above principles laid down and after balancing the facts in the present case and keeping in view the fact that the respondents have been unable to satisfactorily explain the delay in chargesheeting the petitioner, even though the consignment had been issued on 23.07.1984 and would have reached to the said consignee by August, 1984, but no effort was made by the Corporation to take any action for 9 long years and the said delay would necessarily prejudice the case of the petitioner to give a satisfactory explanation. The petitioner, at this stage, would also have retired from service and at this point of time, in the evening of his life, to ask him to submit explanation to a departmental enquiry and to prove the fact that he had taken all due precautions in despatching the stocks pertaining to the year 1984, would clearly prejudice him. At this point of time, it would be impossible for the petitioner to prove that pilferage had taken place not when the stocks were in his charge but later, either during transit or at the station of destination. It has been further pointed out that the judgment of the Division Bench in Dalip Singh's case (supra) was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.2339 of Sailesh Ranjan 2014.01.08 11:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.840 of 1994 -5- 1994 titled Food Corporation of India Vs. Dalip Singh decided on 13.01.1995. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to draw a curtain on the controversy and put an end to the agony of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are allowed and the chargesheet dated 09.11.1993(Annexure P1) is quashed, keeping in view the settled position of law, as laid down above. The petitioner be paid his all outstanding dues, if any, due to the pendency of the chargesheet.
05.12.2013 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
sailesh JUDGE
Sailesh Ranjan
2014.01.08 11:28
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document