Courts Can Extend Time For Disciplinary Proceedings Suo Motu To Ensure Misconduct Doesn't Go Unpunished: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the Court has suo moto powers to extend the time limit for disciplinary proceedings fixed by an earlier Court to ensure that serious misconduct does not go unpunished. Referring to the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others which was affirmed by the...
The Allahabad High Court has recently held that the Court has suo moto powers to extend the time limit for disciplinary proceedings fixed by an earlier Court to ensure that serious misconduct does not go unpunished.
Referring to the decision of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others which was affirmed by the Apex Court in U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow v. Ram Prakash Singh, the bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held,
“in an appropriate case where the employer has not approached the Court for extension of the timeline for completing the disciplinary proceedings, the Court concerned, while adjudicating the validity of the orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings, should also take into consideration the factors due to which the proceedings could not be completed. The Court may then exercise its suo motu power to extend the time limit so as to ensure that a serious charge of misconduct does not go unpunished, thereby preventing serious detriment to the public interest.”
In Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi, the Allahabad High Court had held that the Court can suo moto extend timeline for disciplinary inquiry in appropriate cases to make sure that serious misconduct does not go unpunished.
Respondent was posted as Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad), Commercial Tax at Unnao. During a GST search, despite finding discrepancies, he failed to report them. Accordingly, he was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him.
He challenged his suspension order before the High Court wherein, vide order dated 29.09.2021, it was directed that the disciplinary proceedings be completed within two months, else the suspension order would stand revoked. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted and the punishment order of censure entry and stopping 4 increments was passed on 30.05.2022.
This order was challenged by the respondent before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow and was allowed. Accordingly, the State challenged the order of the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow before the High Court.
The question before the writ Court was whether the inquiry stood vitiated as it was not completed within the timeline provided by the earlier writ Court.
The Court held that the earlier writ Court while fixing the timeline had provided a consequence of non-compliance, which was revocation of suspension order. It held that this did not mean that the disciplinary proceedings could not have been conducted beyond a period of 2 months. Further, it held that the writ Court had directed completion of inquiry within the said period as the respondent had been on suspension for 5 months and the disciplinary inquiry had not concluded.
“Upon such consideration, the Court directed that the disciplinary proceedings be completed within a period of two months, failing which the suspension was to be revoked. The timeline fixed by the Court while passing the judgment and order dated 29.09.2021 for completion of the disciplinary proceedings was confined only to the extent of the petitioner's suspension (respondent herein) and cannot be construed to mean that after the lapse of two months, the disciplinary proceedings could not be continued against the petitioner (respondent herein).”
The Court held that the judgment in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi must be applied based on facts and circumstances of the case. It held,
“In fact, the court or tribunal, while adjudicating such issues, is also bound to examine the circumstances under which the disciplinary proceedings could not be concluded within the time fixed by the Court as well as the gravity of the charges, so as to determine whether its suo motu power to extend the time limit ought has to be exercised.”
Since the earlier writ Court had fixed the timeline only in reference to the suspension order, the Court held that the aforesaid case was inapplicable to the facts of this case.
The Court further observed that the reply to the show cause notice filed by the delinquent was not considered while passing the order of punishment. It noted that the order was solely based on the inquiry report and the findings therein, without considering the reply of the respondent.
Accordingly, the writ petition was partly allowed to the extent that the matter was remanded back to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders after considering the reply of the respondent.
Case Title: State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax And Registration Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko And Another Versus Anshul Jagannath