Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Delayed Disciplinary Proceedings
Court Orders Suspension Period to be Treated as Duty Period; Directs Release of Retiral Dues with Interest
In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the prolonged disciplinary proceedings against Ashok Kumar, a former employee of the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. The court directed that the suspension period be treated as a duty period and ordered the release of all retiral dues, including gratuity and leave encashment, with interest.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar in response to two writ petitions filed by Ashok Kumar, challenging the undue delay and treatment of his suspension period. The petitions contended that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Kumar were marked by inexplicable delays and caused mental agony, financial hardship, and social stigma, even before any charges were proven.
Kumar, placed under suspension on May 16, 2011, was served a charge sheet six months later. Despite being exonerated by the inquiry officer in October 2012, the Managing Director of the Corporation issued a dissenting note in January 2014, prolonging the suspension for over three years. Kumar was reinstated in February 2015, only to retire shortly thereafter, in the same month. The punishment order, issued in November 2015, treated his suspension period as leave of the kind due, which Kumar challenged as unjustified given the circumstances.
The court, referencing precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases like Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, reiterated that disciplinary inquiries must be conducted expeditiously. It emphasized that undue delay not only prejudices the delinquent employee but also reflects poorly on administrative efficiency and integrity. The court underscored that a prolonged delay without justification presumes prejudice, warranting the quashing of proceedings.
In its judgment, the High Court highlighted the necessity of concluding departmental inquiries within a reasonable time frame, ideally within six months or a year at most. It criticized the administration for the careless handling of the inquiry, which seemed to indicate malice or oblique motives. The court affirmed that disciplinary action cannot be kept indefinitely hanging over an employee.
Consequently, the court allowed Ashok Kumar’s petitions, directing the respondents to treat his suspension period as a duty period and to release all retiral dues, including leave encashment and gratuity, with 6% interest on delayed payments. The court mandated the completion of these actions within three months from the date of the order.
This judgment reinforces the legal principle that disciplinary proceedings must be pursued diligently and without unnecessary delay, ensuring fairness and justice to the concerned employees.
Bottom Line:
Disciplinary proceedings must be conducted expeditiously; undue delay causes prejudice to the delinquent employee and may warrant quashing of proceedings.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
