Is Delay A Valid Ground To Scuttle Initiation Of Departmental Proceedings? Supreme Court Answers
The Appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by the appellant who was employed as a Tehsildar.
Justice Abhay S Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld an order quashing a chargesheet issued to a Tehsildar after 13 years in view of the unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings against him despite the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department.
The Appeal before the Apex Court challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Appeal filed by the Respondents, reversing the Order of the Single Judge which quashed the chargesheet issued to the Appellant. As a result, the disciplinary proceedings and the charge sheet were revived.
The Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said, “However, in the instant case where there is unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department, but still no departmental proceedings are initiated, the answer must go in favour of the employee. However, there may be cases where the department was not even aware of such irregularities or the misconduct, which is of such a nature that it is indicative, based on material considerations of factors other than merit, such as extraneous influences and gratifications. In such cases, such a delay, by itself would not be a valid ground to scuttle the initiation of the process of departmental proceedings.”
Advocate Arjun Garg represented the Appellant while AOR Sunny Choudhary represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The Appellant was appointed as Naib Tehsildar in 1981 and was promoted to Tehsildar in the year 1991. Between July 1993 and September 1998, he was posted as Tehsildar in the Gwalior district, where he performed various functions, including quasi-judicial duties. An application was filed by Kuber Singh and Madho Singh for settlement of a plot of land situated in Village Barua. After issuing the notice, no objections were received.
The said application was allowed subject to certain conditions. After a significant delay, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant by the Collector of District Gwalior. The notice alleged that the land settlement was granted to ineligible persons illegally, contrary to the rules. It further stated that the mutation order led to the land being sold, which originally vested in the State Government, causing undue benefit to the parties due to negligence and carelessness in duty. Subsequently, a Chargesheet was issued to the Appellant by the Commissioner, Gwalior stating that he had executed the land settlement illegally, which was indicative of dishonesty.
When the charge sheet was issued to him after 13 years, the Appellant challenged it by filing a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, seeking protection under the provisions of the Judges Protection Act, 1985 (JPA 1985). The same was allowed. In Appeal, the Division Bench revived the chargesheet, while also directing for the completion of the departmental inquiry expeditiously. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the charges alleged against the Appellant in the chargesheet fell under the category of a wrongful order, and the same did not appear to have been influenced by extraneous factors or any form of gratification.
“It appears that the order has been passed in good faith, without any indication of dishonesty. Furthermore, the facts outlined in the Show Cause Notice do not suggest any such impropriety. The power exercised by the Appellant in his capacity as a Tehsildar, while passing the order of Land Settlement Order, cannot be considered of a nature that would warrant disciplinary proceedings against him”, the Bench said.
On the second question regarding whether delay is a ground for stopping the departmental proceedings at the stage of the charge sheet itself, the Bench noted that the same varies from case to case. The Apex Court also noted the inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings despite the alleged misconduct being within the knowledge of the department. Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and restored the judgment of the Single Judge.
Cause Title: Amresh Shrivastava v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 417)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Arjun Garg, AOR Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocates Shivang Rawat, Kriti Gupta, Sagun Shrivastava, Abhinav Chaturvedi, Muskaan
Respondent: AOR Sunny Choudhary, AOR Sarad Kumar Singhania, Advocate Manoj Kumar