Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Applicant, a PAO, has assailed the memorandum dated 28.2.2003 issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. Quashing of the aforesaid as well as enquiry report dated 1.7.2005 on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating and concluding the proceedings has been sought.

2. Learned Counsel of applicant would contend that whereas the allegations framed against applicant do not involve any grave misconduct or any corrupt motive imputed, yet initiating an enquiry on the allegations of 1988 in 2003 is not only inordinate but unexplained, which has resulted in deprivation of a reasonable opportunity to defend as the objections raised consistently before the authorities of belated enquiry, causing prejudice having been taken into consideration and as a result thereof certain documents which could not be procured by the respondents at this remotest point of time has caused prejudice to applicant. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the High Court of Delhi in R.S. Sagar v. Union of India 2002 (2) ATJ 367, where a delay of about 7 years has prejudiced the claim of the concerned and the enquiry has been vitiated. Learned Counsel has also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board , to contend that when the explanation of delay is not convincing and the delay is unexplained and inordinate the same vitiates the enquiry.

4. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Upendra Singh , to contend that interference at an interlocutory stage in the disciplinary proceedings is precluded.

5. Learned Counsel would contend that applicant has participated in the enquiry where on enquiry report the disciplinary authority (DA) has to take action. The ground of inordinate delay would be considered at the appropriate level.

6. Shri Gangwani has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Madras and Anr. v. F.X. Fernendo , to contend that when the delay is on account of fault of other agencies, like in the present case, documents were procured from CPWD, the same would not vitiate the enquiry.

11. The decision in F.X. Fernendo (supra) would have no applicability in the present case as what prevented the respondents from initiating an enquiry immediately on receipt of the complaint, as stated by them, in 1996 is procurement of documents. From their reply though chronological sequence of dates have been given to make it to the proximity of the date of issuance of the chargesheet, yet these are the only steps taken but the fact that respondents have failed to procure the documents despite their efforts, it appears that even the department was not serious to proceed against applicant immediately on receipt of the complaint where the allegations were brought to their notice. What is to be balanced as per N. Radhakishan (supra) is with regard to the allegations. From the allegations what we find is that in the year 1998 procurement of rate contract is alleged but no mala fide or corrupt motive has been attributed to applicant. The decision in P.D. Agrawal (supra), laid down the following ratio:

13. As per N. Radhakishan (supra) balancing the version of both applicant as well as respondents, taking into account the clean administration the delay is not only abnormal but also inordinate. The explanation given shows laxity and delay on the part of the respondents in procuring the documents, which they could succeed only after 7 years. The mental agony faced by applicant when the charge was not complex and no corrupt motive has been attributed, it appears that the DA was not at all serious in pursuing the charges against him. Delay has caused prejudice to applicant when he is not attributed towards this delay. We do not find the explanation tendered as proper or convincing one and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan (supra). This delay is sufficient to vitiate the enquiry. If applicant has been seriously prejudiced in his defence then to await for the decision of the final authority when his objection as to inordinate delay when not paid any heed to and under compulsion without any effective defence available with him applicant was forced to participate in the enquiry, we would not like to aggravate the trauma of applicant and perpetuate the illegality, as it is not expected of the DA to accept the plea of delay in initiating the action, which would hold them responsible for the act.