Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Awasthi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 June, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
W.P.No.4145/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 14th OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 4145 of 2015
Between:-
DINESH AWASTHI, S/O LATE SHRI S.N. AWASTHI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRINCIPAL DIET JABALPUR, R/O 105 SONIA
APARTMENT PHASE II SOUTH CIVIL LINES,
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION
1. DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
2. MANTRALAYA, BHOPAL
COMMISSIONER, RAJYA SHIKSHA KENDRA,
PUSTAK BHAWAN, B-WING, ARERA HILS, BHOPAL
3.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
COMMISSIONER, JABALPUR DIVISION, JABALPUR
4.
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DHIRAJ TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
W.P.No.4145/2015
2
This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the court
passed the following:
ORDER
Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.
2- By invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and proprietary of order dated 09.02.2015 (Annexure P/7) passed by the respondent No.4 by which the regular departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner under M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1966").
3- Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner was posted as Principal in Pandit Lajja Shankar Jha Modal Excellent School, Jabalpur. At the relevant time, some complaints were received in the financial year 2002-03 and 2003-04 with regard to expenditure incurred by the petitioner in respect of certain purchases made for the School. Based on the frivolous complaints, an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Collector and District Vigilance Officer. The said enquiry was concluded and no action was taken against the petitioner. The charges against the petitioner were not proved since the complaint itself was anonymous and heinous in nature. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, after a decade i.e. in the year 2014, the Commissioner W.P.No.4145/2015 3 (Revenue) Jabalpur Division took up the issue suo motu or upon the instigation of someone, issued the letter/charge-sheet dated 12.05.2014 for the offence pertaining to the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. In pursuance to the charge-sheet, the enquiry was proceeded under Rule 14 (3) of the Rules, 1966. On bare perusal of the charges, it is seen that the same relate to certain small purchases made by the petitioner while working as Principal. The allegation in the charge-sheet is that as per M.P. Store Purchase Rules, if the purchase exceeds an amount of Rs.25,000/-, tender has to be invited but the petitioner without inviting the tenders had directly purchased the articles such as Computer Table, Mic, Pump, Cooler, Refrigerator etc. from the open market. Being aggrieved with the letter dated 09.02.2015, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4- This Court vide interim order dated 24.03.2015 had stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 09.02.2015 and as such the departmental enquiry has not been proceeded thereafter and the same is pending.
5- Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge-sheet was issued on 12.05.2014 for the charges pertaining to the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. The petitioner demanded certain documents enabling him to file the reply. The respondents did not supply the documents on the ground that the matter was more than 10 years old and they had no W.P.No.4145/2015 4 documents available with them, however, the petitioner had no option but to file the reply without considering the documents. When more than 10 years nothing was done, it was legitimately understood by the petitioner that the enquiry has been closed. However, the impugned order has been issued after about more than 10 years directing the authorities to conclude the departmental enquiry within a period of 3 months. The respondents have not given any explanation for the huge delay. Hence, the charge-sheet as well as Departmental Enquiry deserves to be quashed.
6- Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Umesh Pratap Singh Chouhan Vs. State of M.P., as reported in 2016 SCC Online MP 5961, wherein it has been held as under :
8. In the matter of Prafulla Kumar s/o Laxminarayan Chaturvedi Vs. State of MP reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ 204 this court has considered the various judgments on the point and has held as under:-
7. It is the settled position in law that if there is inordinate delay in initiating the Departmental Enquiry and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in issuing the charge-sheet, then it would not be fair to permit the department to continue with the Departmental Enquiry. In the matter of The State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh (supra), the Departmental Enquiry initiated by serving charge-sheet in 1987 in respect of the incident of 1975-76 was challenged on the ground of W.P.No.4145/2015 5 inordinate delay of over 12 years, and Supreme Court held that:-
"4. The appeal against the order dated 16.12.1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-
1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders an accordingly we dismiss this appeal."
8. In the matter of State of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakishan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154, the Supreme Court took the view that while examining the question of quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay all the relevant factors should be taken into account and disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after the delay, particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no W.P.No.4145/2015 6 explanation for the delay and the Court has to consider the two diverse considerations i.e. the prejudice caused to the charged officer due to the delay and the fact that normally disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their own course as per relevant rules. The Supreme Court in this context in the matter of N.Radhakishan (supra) held that:-
"19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 W.P.No.4145/2015 7 this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delayed defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
9. Protracting disciplinary enquiry and keeping a government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned and for the mistake committed by the department in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the employee concerned cannot be made to suffer. The Supreme Court in the matter of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD.T.N.Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 held that:-
"11. 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 avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in 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 W.P.No.4145/2015 8 fact, the mental agony and suffering 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."
10. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sadashiv Shivram Garud and others vs. Food Corporation of India and others, reported in 2003(4) MPLJ 183, considered the same question in the background of the fact that the charge-sheet in that case was issued in 1999 for the grave misconduct committed in 1987-
88. The Departmental Enquiry was initiated after more than 10 years. The Division Bench of this Court held that:-
"9. Having found nothing against the appellants during investigation and having used them as prosecution witnesses, it is not understandable why the Corporation has been instructed to initiate departmental enquiry after more than 10 years, more so, in absence of any finding as to their statements by the Special Judge. The Corporation could, if it wanted, initiate the enquiry, when the lapse was detected, it did not do so.
10. Another face of the question is whether this Court can interfere at this stage. The common threat running through catena of cases is where charge is serious and proveable by large number of documents and witnesses reasonable delay in completion of enquiry is excusable and time can be fixed to complete the same. While in cases of unexplained delay and charge is not serious, proceedings can be quashed. The Court can entertain the petition and quash the proceedings where there is no W.P.No.4145/2015 9 satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating and completing the departmental enquiry. However, as said by the Apex Court in N.Radhakishan's case (supra), 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. Each case hasto be examined on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Corporation could initiate the enquiry during 1987-88 or within a reasonable time thereafter. It did not initiate it, which means it is doing it at the directions of the Central Bureau of Investigation. Under what rules/regulations this direction is issued, is neither here nor there. The Corporation failed to apply its mind independently, therefore, initiation of departmental enquiry against the appellants is grossly delayed. It is neither legitimate nor inconsonance with principles of justice and fair play, when seen in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The appellants could challenge the initiation and continuance of the departmental enquiry/charge-sheet against them at any stage, longer the delay in completing the departmental enquiry more the justification to challenge it. Conclusion that the petitions have been filed after three years, is unsustainable on facts and law.
10-A. The departmental enquiry puts an employee under great strain and stigma. It has serious repercussions on his family as well. Therefore, delinquent employee has a right that the disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously. He is not made to undergo W.P.No.4145/2015 10 mental agony and also monetary loss when the enquiry is unnecessarily initiated and prolonged without satisfactory explanation and without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. He is bound to be prejudiced in such an enquiry and constant strain and agony suffered by him cannot be compensated. Therefore, such an enquiry would in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
11. Thus, the settled position in law is that the Departmental Enquiry should be initiated without delay and inordinate delay without proper explanation for the same furnishes ground for quashing the same. It is also settled that the Departmental Enquiry once initiated should be completed expeditiously and long delay in completing the enquiry without proper justification can also be ground to quash the enquiry.
9. The common threat running in all these judgments is that if there is an inordinate delay in initiating the departmental enquiry and there is no sufficient and proper explanation for the delay, then the inordinate delay furnishes a ground for quashing the departmental enquiry.
7- Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that because of the interim order granted by this court in the year 2015, the departmental enquiry could not be proceeded against the petitioner. He further contended that it would have been equitable and proper for the petitioner to participate in the enquiry instead of approaching this Court and in the event of final outcome with W.P.No.4145/2015 11 the said enquiry being dissatisfactory, he would be free to assail the same taking recourse to the proceedings, as permissible under the law.
8- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the charge-sheet was issued on 12.05.2014 for the misconduct pertaining to the year 2002-03 and 2003-04. Thereafter, preliminary enquiry was also got conducted by the then Deputy Collector and District Vigilance Officer. Thereafter, no action was taken against the petitioner for more than 10 years. It is only in the year of 2014 charge-sheet has been issued and the petitioner has been asked to participate in the enquiry and to conclude the same within a period of 03 months. Moreover, as per the notification No.C/5-2/87/3/11 dated 16.04.1987, the State Government has specifically asked all the departments to conclude the departmental enquiry within a year. Pendency of the departmental enquiry for more than 18 years has caused great prejudice to the petitioner and had to suffer mental agony as well as monetary loss. Hence, this case is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Pratap Singh Chouhan (supra). No explanation for issuance of charge- sheet after a delay of more than 10 years has been putforth by the respondents in their reply.
9- In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the charge-sheet dated 12.05.2014 as well as order dated 09.02.2015 deserve to be set aside W.P.No.4145/2015 12 and are hereby set aside. As a consequence, the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner also stands terminated. The petition is accordingly, allowed.
10- No order as to costs.
(S.A.DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
DPS
Digitally signed by DHEERAJ PRATAP SINGH
Date: 2022.06.15 12:08:23 +05'30'