Uday Kumar Varma ORDER
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J)
1. The issue with regard to delay in concluding the departmental proceedings has given rise to present case.
2. The applicant has assailed the memorandum of charges dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 04.08.2014 (Annexure A-4) whereby the respondents have not considered the grant of medical leave from 21.03.2014 to 10.04.2014.
3. The undisputed facts are that the applicant who was working as Lower Division Clerk with respondent department was served with impugned charge sheet dated 30.05.2014 under Rule 16 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for absent from duty w.e.f. 21.03.2014 to 10.04.2014. Thereafter, the applicant submitted his reply on 09.06.2014. Now, the applicant has approached this Court by filing the present O.A. with a prayer that impugned charge sheet be quashed on the ground of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings. The applicant has also alleged malice against respondent No. 3 on whose instance, he has been served with the present charge sheet. He also alleged that he was on sick leave from 21.03.2014 to 10.04.2014 but his leave was not sanctioned and later on it was converted into extra ordinary leave, therefore, he submitted that impugned charge sheet is nothing but a colourable exercise on the part of the respondents to harass the applicant. Hence, the present O.A.
4. The respondents while resisting the claim of the applicant submitted that due to attitude of the applicant for not performing the duty as assigned to him and non corporative-behaviour of the applicant, forced the authority to issue the charge sheet for the period when he was absent from duty i.e. without valid sanction.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. Sh. Jagdeep Jaswal, learned counsel for the applicant, in support of aforementioned plea, placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Prem Nath Bail Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, MANU/SC/1461/2015 : 2016 (1) SCT 603 and prayed that impugned charge sheet be quashed.
7. Per contra, Sh. Sanjay Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents while resisting the claim of the applicant vehemently opposed his prayer and placed reliance upon the judgment passed in case of Secretary Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, MANU/SC/0492/2012 : AIR 2012 SC 2250.
8. Ordinarily, a writ application does not lie against a charge sheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed; it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge-sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgments State of U.P. Vs. Braham Datt Sharma(MANU/SC/0711/1987 : AIR 1987 SC 943); Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board Vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors. (MANU/SC/0180/1996 : 1996 (1) SCC 327); Ulagappa & Ors. Vs. Div. Commr., Mysore & Ors. (MANU/SC/2400/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 3603); Special Director & Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Another (MANU/SC/0025/2004 : AIR 2004 SC 1467) and Union of India & Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (MANU/SC/5137/2006 : AIR 2007 SC 906).
9. The issue with regard to delay in concluding the departmental proceedings has already been considered by the Lordship in number of cases. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal MANU/SC/0628/1995 : (1995) 2 SCC 570), State of Andhra Pradesh versus N. Radhakishan (MANU/SC/0278/1998 : 1998 (3) SC Page 123), Secretary, Forest Department & Ors. Vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury, MANU/SC/0761/2009 : 2009 (7) SCC 305, and Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (supra), and recent judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIVIL APPEAL No. 3935 of 2013 titled as Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Versus Y.P. Education Society & Ors. decided on 26.04.2013.
10. The underline theme of the above authoritative pronouncements is that the Court/Tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is dehors the limitation of judicial review. In the event that the Court/Tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by court. The same principle is applicable in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question, must be carefully examined, taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of charges involved therein.
11. From perusal of above, it can safely be recorded that delay in concluding the departmental proceedings will not always fatal or compel to quash the charge sheet. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the light of the above, now we proceed to examine the facts of the present case. The applicant was served with memorandum of charges on 30.05.2014 to which he also submitted reply in the month of June, 2014. Thereafter, the matter was pending for adjudication with the respondents. Though the charge sheet pertains to minor charge but the applicant fails to show any prejudice caused to him during the pendency of charge sheet, therefore, we are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant to quash the charge-sheet. Accordingly, we reject his contention and dismiss the O.A. However, considering that the applicant has already submitted reply to the charge sheet, therefore, in the interest of justice and to fair play, the respondents are directed to conclude the departmental proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.