Disciplinary Proceedings must be completed within Specified Time

On April 23, the Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings must be completed within a specified time frame set by the Tribunal or Court. If these proceedings continue beyond the set time and no genuine effort is made to request an extension, such continuation could be considered illegal.

Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra explained that if a Tribunal or Court specifies a deadline and states that the inquiry will lapse if not completed within that time, the disciplinary authority loses its jurisdiction to proceed.

They further clarified that if disciplinary proceedings extend beyond the time limit, they could be stopped unless a genuine attempt is made to seek an extension. However, the court emphasized that the facts of each case would influence whether the proceedings are allowed to continue, and in some exceptional cases, the Tribunal or Court could overlook minor delays.

The court provided some key points to guide the continuation of disciplinary proceedings:

1. Extension Request in Exceptional Cases: Even if the set time has expired, an application for an extension can be made. If rejected, the proceedings cannot continue unless a higher court overturns the rejection and allows them to proceed.
2. Objections by the Person Under Inquiry: If the individual facing the disciplinary action objects to the continuation of proceedings after the time limit, the disciplinary authority should apply for an extension first. Proceeding without an extension or over the objection could raise concerns about bias.
3. Failure to Object: If the person does not object to the continuation of proceedings without an extension, the disciplinary authority should still seek an extension before making a final decision. This ensures that the orders from the Tribunal or Court are respected, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

In the case in question, the court dealt with the proceedings against Ram Prakash, an Assistant Engineer in the District Panchayat of Kushinagar. He was accused of embezzling Rs. 2.5 crores in relation to a road and drainage project.

Prakash had faced disciplinary action, and after several rounds of litigation, the case was marked by violations of natural justice. During the inquiry, Prakash was denied the necessary documents and the chance to defend himself properly, which led to the court ruling that the proceedings had violated the due process outlined in the 1999 rules for government servants.

The Tribunal had initially set a deadline for concluding the inquiry, which passed without any action taken. Later, despite objections from Prakash about the expired deadline, the inquiry officer continued with the proceedings and found him guilty without following the required procedures, such as calling witnesses and cross-examining them.

In response, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts, stating that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed and had failed to follow proper procedures. The court further ruled that since Prakash had been denied a fair opportunity to defend himself, the punishment imposed on him was unjust. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal from the state and ordered that Prakash be entitled to full retirement benefits, although any provisional pension would be adjusted with the arrears.

Key Points from the Judgment:

• Failure to Follow Proper Procedures: The inquiry officer failed to follow the legal requirements set out in the Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, such as calling witnesses and giving the accused the chance to cross-examine them.
• Right to Fair Defense: The court reinforced that the right to receive the inquiry report is a fundamental safeguard for individuals facing disciplinary action. This report must be provided even if the person under inquiry does not request it.
• Violation of Natural Justice: The Court emphasized that the disciplinary process must respect the principles of natural justice. In this case, the lack of a proper inquiry and failure to follow legal rules rendered the proceedings illegal.

The Court’s decision further clarified that the right to a fair inquiry is not dependent on the rules of a specific organization but is a fundamental right that applies to all, including government and private sector employees. The court’s ruling shows that any disregard for these rights can make the disciplinary proceedings void.

• Download Court Order