NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said the unexplained and inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department, must go in favour of the employee.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih, however, said, delay, by itself would not be a valid ground to scuttle the initiation of the process of departmental proceedings against an employer.
SC Ruling on Departmental Delay: Relief for Government Employees
It pointed out there may be cases where the department was not even aware of such irregularities or the misconduct, which is of such a nature that it is indicative, based on material considerations of factors other than merit, such as extraneous influences and gratifications.
The court allowed a plea for closing disciplinary proceedings against a then Tehsildar over passing a land settlement order allegedly in favour of ineligible persons. It noted 14 years delay in issuing show cause notice to him was unexplained and the orders passed by him do not seem to be influenced by extraneous factors or any form of gratification.
On an appeal filed by Amresh Srivastava, the bench said the power exercised by him in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing the land settlement order, cannot be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him.
"We are of the considered view that the charges alleged against the appellant in the charge sheet fall under the category of a wrongful order," the bench said.
Employee Rights in Disciplinary Proceedings: Supreme Court’s Verdict
The court said it appears that the order has been passed in good faith, without any indication of dishonesty. The facts outlined in the show cause notice do not suggest any such impropriety, it added.
The bench set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's division bench order of April 30, 2019, after finding the state government counsel failed to explain the delay in issuing charge sheet.
The division bench allowed the plea by the state government and reversed the order by the single judge of April 26, 2017, which quashed the charge sheet issued against him on April 29, 2011, thus reviving the disciplinary proceedings against him.
He was alleged to have passed the land settlement orders in 1997 in favour of ineligible persons in an illegal manner, contrary to the rules.
This court in Union of India and others Vs K K Dhawan (1993) enumerated some of the factors to be considered in such cases of disciplinary actions, which are only a guide and not meant to be mandatorily adhere to without exception, the bench said.
It pointed out the state counsel was also unable to provide any material evidence suggesting extraneous considerations or influences that would place this case outside the protection afforded by the law as settled by this court.
