Delhi High Court
Shri N.S. Bhatnagar vs Union Of India & Anr. on 19 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001IVAD(DELHI)843, 92(2001)DLT301, 2001(59)DRJ488, [2001(91)FLR330]
Author: Sharda Aggarwal
Bench: Sharda Aggarwal
ORDER Sharda Aggarwal, J.
1. The petitioner has directed this petition against the orders dated 20th May, 1998 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing the petitioner's OA.No.1012/98. The petitioner in the application before the Tribunal had challenged the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing upon him a penalty of cut of 10% amount from his pension for a period of five years. The petitioner had sought the following three reliefs before the Tribunal:
a) Pass a writ, order or direction to call for the records in the disciplinary case in respect of the applicant and after perusing the same, quash the order dated 16.10.1996 baring No.14033/3/91-UT.
b) Pass a writ, order or direction consequently, in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release to the applicant his entire pension from the date of the said order dated 16.10.1996 and also directed the respondents to continue paying the applicant his full pension as per rules.
c) Pass a writ, order or directing direction the respondents to release an amount of Rs.40,615.85 paise along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum forthwith, being the amount spent towards medical expenses incurred to be reimbursed by the reimbursed by the respondent.
2. The Tribunal rejected the relief (c) as it constituted a separate cause of action. Relief (b) was to follow relief (a). These two reliefs were declined on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were taken out giving him every opportunity to put forth his version and the Tribunal could not re-appreciate the evidence and act as an Appellate Authority.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no doubt the present case cannot be termed as a case of no evidence, but the disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated on account of inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and thereafter passing final order of penalty against the petitioner that too after six years of his retirement.
4. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. whether the delay did vitiate the disciplinary proceedings, we may refer to a brief resume of facts and sequence of events.
5. At the relevant time, the petitioner was a Cashier in G.B. Pant Hospital. The incident relates to the period 7th October, 1978 to 11th October,1978. On 12th October, 1978 the petitioner found the key No.1 of the cash chest missing from the steel almirah in which he had kept the same. He reported the matter to his superiors. On 13th October, 1978 duplicate key was taken form the Medical Superintendent and no the cash chest being opened, a sum of Rs.36,935.80 paise was found missing. An FIR was lodged and one Mr.H.L.Gulati faced the prosecution. But ultimately he was acquitted on 13th December, 1979 for lack of evidence. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated for the first time after nine years by serving a charge sheet dated 3rd February, 1987 on the petitioner. An Enquiry Officer was appointed who gave the report after recording the evidence of the parties on 16th June, 1989. The Disciplinary Authority, however, did not pass any orders imposing penalty till 16th October, 1996. In the meantime, before the report of the Enquiry Officer the petitioner was transferred on 21st March, 1989 which was challenged by the petitioner by filling OA.No.807/89 before the Tribunal. The transfer orders were quashed vide order dated 4th July, 1989 of the Tribunal. The petitioner retired on 31st October, 1990 as Cashier from Maulana Azad Medical College and almost after one year of his retirement vide order dated 23rd September, 1991 provisional pension equivalent to maximum pension was granted to him. The petitioner also challenged the Enquiry Report before the Tribunal by filing OA.No.1322/95 which was disposed of on 22nd March, 1996 with the directions to the respondents to pass the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of two months. After these directions, on the opinion of UPSC, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 16th October, 1996 imposed a penalty of cut of 10% in the pension of the petitioner for a period of five years. This order of the Disciplinary Authority was challenged before the Tribunal, which resulted in the impugned order dated 20th, May, 1998 against which the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
6. The above facts show that the incident had taken place in the year 1978 and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner only after a period of nine years in February, 1987. Though the Enquiry Officer gave its report on 16th June, 1989, the Disciplinary Authority took another seven years for passing the orders of penalty. The penalty orders were passed on 16th October, 1996, that too on the direction of the Tribunal in OA.No1322/95 vide order dated March,1996. The order of the Disciplinary Authority came after six years of the retirement of the petitioner as the petitioner had retired on 31st October, 1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay of more than 18 years from the date of the incident in concluding the enquiry proceedings. It is shocking that for a period of nine years, the respondents did not think of initiating the enquiry proceedings and suddenly on 3rd February, 1987, the Department rising from slumber, served the petitioner with a charge sheet. There is no explanation whatsoever for this inordinate delay. Even after the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority did not pass the necessary orders for seven years. It was only when the respondents were directed by the Tribunal, the respondents woke up to pass the order imposing a penalty of cut of 10% of pension for five years on the petitioner. It is nobody's case that the petitioner at any stage tried to obstruct or delay the enquiry proceedings. Under these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inordinate delay in the present case has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings and the impugned order of the Tribunal and the order of the Disciplinary Authority are liable to be quashed and set aside
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance in this respect on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakishan, . In the said case, the order quashing the charge-memo and directing the State to promote the respondent as per the recommendation of D.P.C. was upheld by the Apex Court returning finding that there was abnormal delay, which had vitiated the disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court held as under:
"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 terminate 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 in to consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh then 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 considering whether the delay 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 was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the fact 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 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 delay 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 conducing the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations."
is writ large on the face of it. It is nobody's case that the petitioner at any stage tried to obstruct or delay the enquiry proceedings. The order of the Disciplinary Authority penalizing the petitioner with cut of 10% of his pension for a period of five years came after six years of the retirement of the petitioner. The delay in this case has seriously prejudiced the charged officer and has defeated justice. The delay in the case did vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the point.
8. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 20th May, 1998 of the Tribunal is set aside and the order dated 16th October, 1996 of the Disciplinary Authority is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to give full superannuary benefits to the petitioner according to law within a period of two months from the date of this order.
9. The petitioner has also claimed reimbursement of Rs.40,615.85 paise with interest at the rate of 18% per annum having been spent towards the medical expenses incurred for the bypass surgery of the petitioner. The necessary medical record for the purpose of reimbursement of the amount has already been submitted by the petitioner to the Department. Since the petitioner has been granted full superannuary benefits, he is also entitled to the medical reimbursement. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's case for reimbursement of medical expenses in accordance with rules and reimburse him for the medical expenses within two months.
10. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.