Disciplinary Proceedings Beyond Court-Fixed Timeline Can Be Interdicted If No Bona Fide Attempt Made To Seek Extension: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that when a disciplinary order is passed after the time limit set by the Court for passing the same has expired and no effort has been made by the disciplinary authority to seek time extension, the same shall stand vitiated. It also held the deciding whether such an order is vitiated would depend on the facts of each case. Referring to the decisions of...
The Allahabad High Court has held that when a disciplinary order is passed after the time limit set by the Court for passing the same has expired and no effort has been made by the disciplinary authority to seek time extension, the same shall stand vitiated. It also held the deciding whether such an order is vitiated would depend on the facts of each case.
Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sharvan Kumar and State of U.P. vs. Ram Prakash Singh, Justice Shree Prakash Singh held,
“….it is provided that it is not always possible for the disciplinary authority to follow the stipulated period to conclude the proceedings and therefore, it can seek for extension of time before expiry of such time limit. Stretching the consideration zone, it has also been held that in exceptional cases, after the expiry of the time limit, the application can be moved, but, that will depend on the discretion of the court concerned to accept or reject the request of extension of time in facts and circumstances of the case and at the same time, it has been provided that continuance of any disciplinary proceeding out of the stipulated period of time, can invite interdiction if there is no bonafide attempt made for seeking the extension of the time limit.”
Petitioner started on the post of Lecturer(Hindi) in L.R.N.S. Inter College, Naimisharan in 1993. Thereafter, in 2011, she was promoted to the post of Principal of at Shri Dayanand Rameshwar Prasad Hansrani Arya Kanya Inter College, Sitapur. As per the facts, the opposite party no.5 recommended several transfers in the institution. Petitioner, being the Principal, sought indulgence. Annoyed by the petitioner, the opposite party no.5 recommended petitioner's suspension under section 16 (G) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
The suspension order was assailed before the High Court and quashed on grounds that it was not passed by competent authority. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools passed a suspension order against the petitioner which was also quashed by the High Court with a direction to the competent authority to conclude the proceedings in 51 days.
Since the order of suspension under challenge was passed after 71 days, petitioner challenged the same before the High Court on grounds that when the time was fixed by the High Court for inquiry, the order could not have been passed after it. Petitioner claimed to be covered by the decision of the Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Ram Prakash Singh.
On the other hand, relying on Union of India vs. Sharvan Kumar, counsel for respondents argued that the proceedings could be concluded even in absence of any time extension application. It was argued that the proceedings did not stand abated automatically only because the time prescribed in the order was not adhered to.
The primary issues framed by the High Court was whether there is a conflict between the two decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sharvan Kumar and State of U.P. vs. Ram Prakash Singh.
In Union of India vs. Sharvan Kumar, the Apex Court held that
“When a conditional order is passed by the Court/Tribunal to do a particular act or thing within a particular period but the order does not provide anything as to the consequence of default, the Court/Tribunal fixing the time for doing a particular thing obviously retains the power to enlarge such time. As a corollary, even the Appellate Court/Tribunal or any higher forum would also be having the power to enlarge such time, if so required. In any case, it cannot be said that the proceedings would come to an end immediately after the expiry of the time fixed.”
In State of U.P. vs. Ram Prakash Singh, the Apex Court held that sometimes unseen hurdles may delay the disciplinary proceedings beyond the time fixed by Courts/ Tribunals and time extension application may be filed even after expiry of time in exception cases. It held that in case the delinquent employee objects to continuation of proceedings after the time prescribed has elapsed, the disciplinary authority must seek time extension by way of any application and must not proceed unless permission for the same is obtained.
Lastly, it held that even if the employee doesn't object, time extension must be sought by the disciplinary authority before passing any final order as not doing so would be disrespect towards the orders passed by Courts/Tribunals.
It held
“We also hold that continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond the time stipulated by a tribunal/court could invite interdiction if no bona fide attempt is shown to have been made to seek an extension of time. However, much would depend on the facts of each case and it may not be possible to lay down a common formula applicable to each case. In an exceptional case, the tribunal/court would have the discretion to overlook the laxity and make such direction as it deems fit in the circumstances."
Perusing the aforesaid decisions, Justice Shree Prakash Singh held that there was no inconsistency in the two judgments of the Supreme Court.
“The gist of the ratio is that the ultimate purpose of the disciplinary proceeding should not be held up because of the time limit framed by the court, without there being any statutory time limit and therefore, the discretion has been opened to be exercised by the tribunals/courts concerned to apply it's mind to reconcile the issues in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Applying the ratio to the facts of the present case, the Court held that there was no effort made by the disciplinary authority to seek time extension, therefore, the order stood vitiated. The gave respondents liberty to proceed afresh from the stage of giving petitioner the opportunity to file reply and conclude the proceedings within 2 months.
Case Title: Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Education Lko. And 4 Others
Appearances: Mr. Shreshth Srivastava and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Shukla counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Apoorva Tewari, Amicus Curiae, Mr. Brijendra Singh and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Ashutosh Singh, counsel for the opposite party no. 5.