Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1285 (MP)

Raghunandan Prasad Gupta v. State of M. P.

2013-10-24

Rajendra Menon

body2013
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the charge sheet dated 29.7.2002 and the consequential departmental inquiry initiated against him under Rule 14 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 2. Challenge to the charge-sheet and the departmental inquiry initiated is made mainly on the ground that there is inordinate delay in initiation of the proceedings. It is stated that the incident for which the charge-sheet is issued, occurred in the year 1986-87. The charge-sheet is issued after a period of more than 15 years of the incident i.e… on 29.7.2002, just two days prior to the retirement of the petitioner. Accordingly, on the aforesaid grounds challenge is made to the charge sheet and initiation of the departmental inquiry. 3. Records indicate that while issuing notice at the time of admission, on 7.10.2002, respondents were restrained from passing any final order on the departmental inquiry and, therefore, no final decision has been taken. Be that as it may, the facts that have come on record goes to show that petitioner was working in the Department as an Accountant. He has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2002, as is evident from Annexure A/1. However, just two days before his retirement, the impugned charge-sheet dated 29.7.2002 has been issued to him. A perusal of the charge-sheet goes to show that the allegation levelled in the charge-sheet is to the effect that while the petitioner was posted in the office of Chief Medical Officer, in the year 1986-87 as an Accountant, he had made certain wrong entries with regard to payment for medicines. As a result it is alleged that he has committed misconduct. In charge No.(ii), it is stated that even though the mis-appropriation or misconduct is committed by the petitioner in the year 1986-87, the facts came to the notice of the department only after five years when the appropriate bills were submitted and they were audited in the year 1992-93. As a result it is alleged that he has committed misconduct. In charge No.(ii), it is stated that even though the mis-appropriation or misconduct is committed by the petitioner in the year 1986-87, the facts came to the notice of the department only after five years when the appropriate bills were submitted and they were audited in the year 1992-93. Accordingly, holding the petitioner prima facie guilty of the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet, a departmental inquiry was proposed to be held against him under Rule 14 and challenging the aforesaid petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that there is inordinate delay in filing of the charge-sheet and the delay is not explained, issuance of the charge-sheet just two days before retirement is unsustainable and now after a period of so many years, the charge-sheet could not be proceeded with. 4. Respondents have filed reply and it is only stated that charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner as certain irregularities were committed by the petitioner in submission of bills with regard to purchase of medicines and this has resulted in loss to the petitioner, therefore, enquiry is proposed to be held. 5. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether on the ground of delay in initiation of the departmental proceedings the charge-sheet can be quashed or not? 6. The question of quashing a charge-sheet and departmental inquiry initiated after an inordinate delay has been considered by the Supreme Court in various cases. The law in this regard has been discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. MD. T.N. Housing Board, (2006) 6 SCC 636, in which issuance of a charge-sheet after a period of more than 10 years was quashed by the Supreme Court. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court that if there is inordinate unexplained delay in issuance of the charge-sheet, the entire departmental inquiry and the charge-sheet can be quashed. 7. Reliance is also placed on an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of delay in initiating departmental proceedings, in the case of State of MP v. Bani Singh, 1990 JLJ 319 = 1990 Supp SCC 738. 7. Reliance is also placed on an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of delay in initiating departmental proceedings, in the case of State of MP v. Bani Singh, 1990 JLJ 319 = 1990 Supp SCC 738. Similarly, in the case of P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and others, 2006 (3) JLJ 176 = 2007(1) SCC (L&S) 43, similar question has been considered and it has been held that if there is inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating the departmental inquiry, then the doctrine of condonation of mis-conduct would apply and a charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. 8. Consistently, it has been held by the Supreme Court that a departmental inquiry should be held within a reasonable time and if inordinate unexplained delay is in existence, the same operates as a reason for quashing the entire departmental proceedings. The consistent view of the Supreme Court has been that delay in initiation of the charge-sheet not only has the effect of condoning the misconduct, but it also has the effect of prejudicing the case of the delinquent employee in as much as after a long period of time, the evidence of the witnesses are not available and the employee concerned becomes handicapped in defending himself in the departmental inquiry. That being so, the principle of law is that an unexplained inordinate delay in initiation of the departmental inquiry is fatal and on such ground a departmental inquiry can be quashed. 9. If the aforesaid principle is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that in this case also there is an unexplained inordinate delay of more than 15 years in initiating the proceedings. From the records it is clear that the allegations with regard to the misconduct is said to have been committed while the petitioner was posted in a particular office in the year 1986-87. In the imputation of allegation with regard to the charge-sheet, it is clearly stated that even though the incident is of the year 1986-87, but the facts came to the notice of the department only in the year 1992-93, when the bills were submitted by the petitioner. In the imputation of allegation with regard to the charge-sheet, it is clearly stated that even though the incident is of the year 1986-87, but the facts came to the notice of the department only in the year 1992-93, when the bills were submitted by the petitioner. That being so, it is clear that the fact with regard to the acts of commission and omission on the part of the delinquent employee came to the notice of the department in the year 1992-93. Even if the department acquired knowledge of the misconduct having been committed in the year 1992-93, there is no reason as to why there is a delay of more than 10 years in issuing the charge-sheet, which was issued on 29.7.2002. That being so, it is a case where there is an inordinate unexplained delay of more than 15 years in issuing the charge-sheet. Even if the period is counted from the date of acquiring of knowledge, respondents’ own document shows that there is a delay of 10 years. 10. That apart, the charge-sheet is issued just two days before the retirement of the employee. The employee has retired more than 10 years back and now no useful purpose would be served by conducting the departmental inquiry. In the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the well settled legal principle, as is indicated hereinabove, I am of the considered view that this petition has to be allowed and the impugned action quashed. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The charge-sheet issued to the petitioner dated 29.7.2002 and the impugned action, are held to be unsustainable and are accordingly quashed. Respondents are restrained from conducting the departmental inquiry. 12. The petition stands allowed and disposed of.