Note: This story has not been edited by LegalSeva and is generated from a news syndicate feed.
HC: Errant staff have right to quick penal proceedings
Chandigarh: Punjab and Haryana high court has said that every delinquent employee has a legitimate right to have disciplinary proceedings concluded expeditiously, as ‘undue prolongation’ causes mental agony, financial hardship, and social stigma even before the charges are proven.
“When delay is abnormal and remains unexplained by the department, prejudice to the delinquent is presumed. The employee may suffer from loss of evidence, non-availability of witnesses, fading memory, and inability to defend effectively. While serious charges may warrant continuation, prolonged delay without justification tilts the balance in favour of quashing the proceedings…” the bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said in a recent order.
Prolonged inquiry is mental agony, rules high court.
The HC said, “Protracted enquiries defeat the very purpose of the disciplinary mechanism. Instead of ensuring efficiency, integrity, and accountability, they breed inefficiency, demoralisation, and distrust in the system.”
Delay in disciplinary action is itself a punishment, HC observed.
“A lack of seriousness in pursuing charges reflects poorly on the administration and may indicate malice or oblique motives. The employ er cannot be permitted to keep the sword of disciplinary action dangling over an
employee indefinitely,” Justice Brar said while disposing of a petition filed by Ashok Kumar, an employee of Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, who was suspended on May 16, 2011, and faced a chargesheet only after six months.
Although the inquiry officer exonerated him in Oct 2012, the corporation’s managing director issued a dissenting note in Jan 2014, keeping the matter pending until Kumar’s retirement on Feb 28, 2015. In Nov 2015, the department ordered that his entire suspension period be treated as “leave of the kind effectively denying due” him salary for that period.
Aggrieved by this, Kumar approached HC.
After hearing the matter, HC found the four-and-a-half-year delay in passing the punishment order “unreasonable”, holding that the departmental inquiries should ordinarily conclude within six months to a year. HC further ordered that the petitioner’s suspension period be treated as a duty period, entitling him to full pay and benefits. The court also directed the corporation to release all retiral dues, including gratuity and leave encashment, with 6% annual interest on delayed payments, to be completed within three months of receiving the certified order.
For case specific advice, get in touch with best Service Lawyers Punjab and Haryana High Court District Court Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Derabassi Kharar.
More on 99888-17966
The Chandigarh High Court upholds disciplinary inquiry decisions unless findings are perverse, arbitrary, or completely unsupported by evidence. The High Court’s power to intervene is limited, focusing on procedural fairness, natural justice violations, and proportionality of the punishment. It can only interfere if the inquiry authority failed to consider or misinterpreted evidence, or if the prescribed procedure was not followed. [1, 2]
When the High Court Intervenes-
The High Court may intervene in disciplinary proceedings if: [2]
Perverse or Arbitrary Findings: The findings of the inquiry are based on no evidence, are illogical, or are completely contrary to the evidence on record.
Violation of Natural Justice: Principles of natural justice, such as the right to a fair hearing, were not followed during the inquiry.
Procedural Flaws: The inquiry officer or disciplinary authority failed to follow the legally prescribed procedure for the inquiry.
Disproportionate Punishment: The punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the offense committed.
When the High Court Will Not Intervene
Limited Scope of Review: The Court’s power to review disciplinary proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution is very limited.
No Reappreciation of Evidence: The High Court does not sit as a court of appeal to re-examine the evidence, except to see if the findings were based on no evidence.
Focus on Fairness: The Court primarily ensures that the disciplinary process was fair and that the employee had a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.
Key Considerations
Administrative Control: In cases concerning the subordinate judiciary, the High Court exercises administrative control, but this is still bound by constitutional procedures and safeguards.
Standard of Proof: In departmental inquiries, the standard of proof is the “preponderance of probability,” which is different from the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard in criminal trials.
In essence, the Chandigarh High Court will not overturn a disciplinary inquiry’s outcome merely because it disagrees with the decision or the punishment, but will only intervene when there has been a clear failure of natural justice or a manifest disregard for established procedures or evidence. [1]
AI responses may include mistakes.
Latest Legal News, Stories & Updates by LegalSeva 