Disciplinary Enquiry Should Be Initiated Within Reasonable Period: Karnataka HC Quashes 17-Year-Old Delayed Proceedings
The Karnataka High Court held that disciplinary inquiries must be initiated within a reasonable period, and initiating such proceedings after a significant delay is unfair. A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner alleging that he did not collect development charges/layout charges from a certain individual and issued an unauthorized khatha in 1989. The petitioner argued that initiating a disciplinary inquiry 17 years after the alleged misconduct was unjustified. Despite this defense, an inquiry was conducted, finding the petitioner guilty. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of compulsory retirement and the demand to reimburse the state.
A Bench of Justice N S Sanjay Gowda held, “It is settled by a series of decisions of the Apex Court that disciplinary enquiry should be initiated within a reasonable period and it would be unfair to permit the disciplinary enquiry to be initiated after a long lapse of time. Since, in the instant case, the enquiry proceedings were initiated 17 years after the alleged misconduct, in my view, the entire proceedings which has culminated in the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed.”
Senior Advocate M.R. Rajagopal appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Prathibha. R.K. appeared for the Respondents.
The Court noted the significant delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, stating that disciplinary inquiries must be initiated within a reasonable time. The Court said, “In respect of this endorsement of the year 1989, obviously, the charge sheet laid against the petitioner, 17 years thereafter in the year 2006, cannot be sustained. There is absolutely no reason put forth by the authorities for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo. The Enquiry Officer has also not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter, which fundamentally vitiated the entire enquiry” Due to the 17-year delay, the court quashed the entire proceedings.
However, since the petitioner had reached superannuation, he was not reinstated, and he was not entitled to back wages. He was granted continuity of service for pension purposes. The Court added, “However, since the petitioner has now attained the age of superannuation, he would not be entitled for reinstatement. Having regard to the principle of no work no pay, he would not be entitle for any backwages also, but he would only be entitled for continuity of service for the purposes of fixation of his pension.”
The Court directed the respondents to settle the petitioner's terminal benefits, including pensionary benefits, within two months from the date of the order. The writ petition was allowed.
Cause Title: Pape Gowda v. State of Karnataka & Ors., [2023:KHC:35700]
Click here to read/download the Order