Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Be Continued Beyond Time Limit Set By Courts Without Seeking Extension : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today (April 23) held that when a fixed time is stipulated by a Tribunal or Court to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, continuation of such proceedings beyond that time could be illegal if no bona fide attempt is made to seek extension of time.A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra also stated that if the Tribunal/Court fixes a time with a rider...
The Supreme Court today (April 23) held that when a fixed time is stipulated by a Tribunal or Court to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, continuation of such proceedings beyond that time could be illegal if no bona fide attempt is made to seek extension of time.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra also stated that if the Tribunal/Court fixes a time with a rider that, in default, the enquiry will lapse, the disciplinary authority in such a case would cease to have jurisdiction.
"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."
It laid down the following pointers while considering disciplinary proceedings where a time has been stipulated to conclude the proceedings.
First, in exceptional cases, even after expiry of the stipulated time, an application seeking extension can be made. If the application is rejected, the proceedings cannot be carried forward unless a superior court, reversing the order of rejection, permits the disciplinary authority to so proceed.
Second, if the person against whom the disciplinary proceedings are initiated objects to the continuation of proceedings without extension, the disciplinary authority ought to first apply for extension of time.
"Proceeding despite objection and without there being an extension could give rise to apprehensions of bias. Therefore, applying for extension upon halting the proceedings awaiting order on the application would be an advisable course of action to balance the interests of both the employer and the employee."
Third, even if the person has not objected to the continuation of the proceedings without extension, the disciplinary authority ought to seek extension before final order is passed.
This is for the simple reason that the sanctity of the orders of tribunals/courts cannot be disrespected by errant parties. The dignity of the judicial process would be seriously eroded and there would be nothing left of the rule of law if orders of tribunals/courts, validly made, are disobeyed and the disobedience is encouraged by being indulgent.
In the present case, two rounds of litigation were made against the Respondent; however, each time, the principles of natural justice were violated by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the Court held:
Respondent, undoubtedly, was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry by the appellant, as ordained by the 1999 Rules. The manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted and continued against the respondent did not satisfy the requirements of 'due process'. The flaws creeping in such proceedings have rendered the same wholly illegal. The routine course of action in a case, such as the present, where an order of punishment is set aside on grounds of breach of statutory rules and the charged officer is not acquitted on merits, is to remit the case to the disciplinary authority and direct resumption from the stage the proceedings is found to stand vitiated.
Considering the time that has lapsed, the Court put quietus to the matter and dismissed the appeal by the Appellant(State). It held that the Respondent shall be entitled to full retiral benefits from the date of superannuation. However, the provisional pension are to be adjusted with the arrears.
Background
The present case arises from the allegation against the Respondent, Ram Prakash, who was serving as Assistant Engineer in the District Panchayat, Kushinagar. He was accused of embezzling panchayat's funds to the tune of Rs. 2.5 crores in relation to a certain drainage and road construction project.
Various proceedings were initiated against the Respondent. In the first round of litigation, the Respondent was put under suspension after disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. An audit report was done, which became the basis for the charges against him.
While the order of suspension was challenged before the Allahabad High Court, resulting in his reinstatement, an Enquiry Officer conducted an enquiry without providing him the requisite documents on charges. The Enquiry officer held him guilty whereas the Respondent argued there was no enquiry at all since no witnesses were examined, documents which formed part of enquiry were not supplied to him.
Subsequently, an order was passed two years after the enquiry to dismiss the Respondent from service and a penalty of Rs. 10.52 lakhs was imposed on him. This was challenged before the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal, which held that there was no enquiry in terms of the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999.
It was stated that Rule 7(vii) of the 1999 Act stipulates that the Enquiry Officer shall call witnesses, record their oral evidence and give the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses to the charged officer.
In the Tribunal's order dated January 23, 2014, it was ordered that the Appellant initiate enquiry proceedings from the stage of submission of reply within 3 weeks from the judgment and conclude within a period of an additional 3 months. The period for concluding the enquiry expired in April 2014.
In the second round of litigation, the Enquiry Officer sent a letter to the Respondent in May 2014 asking him to present his additional statement or evidence. Various letters were subsequently sent and the Respondent replied that the time set by the Tribunal had expired. However, on September 15, 2014, the Enquiry Officer once again held the Respondent guilty of all charges without recording oral evidence, etc.
Subsequently, a fresh order of punishment was issued in March 2015, which was challenged before the Tribunal. In its 2018 order, the Tribunal had set aside an order of punishment against the Respondent wherein a penalty of Rs. 10.25 lakh, along with a 5% reduction in pension for 5 years. Against which the State made an unsuccessful challenge before the Allahabad High Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the Allahabad High Court's order and the Tribunal's order that the enquiry was not in accordance with the 1999 Act.
We are at loss to comprehend as to how, after the first round of litigation before the Tribunal leading to quashing of the order of dismissal dated 27th July, 2010, the same mistake could be repeated by the Enquiry officer by not calling for witnesses to record their oral statements as well as to prove the documents generated in course of the preliminary enquiry. The procedure followed is plainly indefensible and, therefore, we hold that the respondent has been punished by the disciplinary authority without due process being followed in taking disciplinary action against him.
The bench further stated that the right to receive enquiry report is a fundamental safeguard in disciplinary proceedings. It also remarked that the report must be furnished to the employee even without a request, as it forms an integral part of ensuring a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend against the charges.
Thus, the right to receive the enquiry report as a fundamental safeguard in disciplinary proceedings, where such report holds the charges against the delinquent employee to be established, was firmly entrenched by the Constitution Bench in the jurisprudence relating to proceedings initiated for disciplinary action for misconduct. This valuable right applies uniformly, regardless of who the employer is (Government, public or private) and regardless of what the rules governing the service ordain. Even if the rules are silent or do not require furnishing of the enquiry report, the same has to be furnished.
It therefore held that the inquiry stands vitiated: "We, thus, hold while answering the third issue that there has been blatant disregard by the appellant of not only principles of natural justice and the judicial command in B. Karunakar (supra) by not furnishing the enquiry report but also by not following the applicable statutory rule. The enquiry, therefore, stands wholly vitiated."
Case Details: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, LUCKNOW v. RAM PRAKASH SINGH
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 463