Authorities Must Ensure That Disciplinary Cases Instituted Against Government Servant Be Concluded Expeditiously: Delhi HC
|Finding that the inability of the Petitioner to render mandatory field service or to complete residency period and pre-promotional courses was only on account of circumstances created by the Respondents, the Delhi High Court held the Inspector General of Police (Pers.) and DIG (Pers) guilty of Contempt of Court under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Division Bench in judgment dated Dec 24, 2019.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that “considering the fact that the promotion which was being offered to the Petitioner was notional and not actual, the Respondents in light of the judgment dated 24.12.2019 are obligated to grant notional promotion to the Petitioner to the post held by his immediate junior, Mr. R.D.S. Sahi”.
Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose appeared for the Petitioner, whereas ASG Sanjay Jain appeared for the Respondent.
In a brief background, the Petitioner was served with a charge sheet and penalty of ‘removal from service’ was imposed in 1995. The said order imposing penalty of removal from service after four rounds of litigation was first set aside in 2012 by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Petitioner was directed to be reinstated. The Respondents acted upon the said order belatedly in 2015 and while reinstating the Petitioner, the Respondents immediately placed him under deemed suspension w.e.f. 10.07.1995, until further orders. Though the Petitioner made representation against his deemed suspension in 2015, the Respondent failed to take any further steps in the disciplinary proceedings, which remained pending. It was during the pendency of a writ petition filed before this Court that the Respondents took the final decision in 2018 reiterating their decision of imposing penalty of ‘removal from service’ on the Petitioner.
After considering the submission, the High Court noted that the Respondents had submitted that the date of imposing minor penalty could never be retrospective and it had to be prospective.
The High Court stated that it was a matter of record that the Petitioner had been prevented from serving in CRPF since July 10, 1995 on account of successive Presidential orders, which were all in furtherance of the Memorandum of Charges dated Sep 06, 1989.
The Bench highlighted that the stand of the Respondents that imposition of penalty had to be w.e.f. Oct 16, 2018 was expressly contrary to the directions issued by the Division Bench and contrary to the contents of the earlier Presidential Orders relied upon by the Respondents, which consistently sought to impose penalty on the Petitioner w.e.f. July 10, 1995 in one form or the other.
The Bench found that it was a matter of record that Petitioner’s immediate junior held the post of IG, as on Sep 14, 2021 when the Respondent first considered the Petitioner’s case for promotion.
The Bench stated that the Petitioner could not be refused promotions because of the Respondents’ failings, because period from 10.07.1995 till 16.03.2021, wherein the Petitioner was prevented from serving in active duty was solely on account of the acts and omissions of the Respondent, as was evident from the judicial record.
The inability of the Petitioner, therefore, to render mandatory field service or to complete residency period and pre promotional courses was only on account of circumstances created by the Respondent, added the Bench.
The Bench stated that it was necessary for the authorities to ensure that the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution instituted against any Government servant was not unduly prolonged and that all efforts should be made to conclude the proceedings expeditiously so that the need for keeping the case of a government servant in a sealed cover was limited.
“However, in the facts of this case, it can be seen that the findings of the DPCs from 1995 have been kept in sealed cover and have not been acted upon due to the ongoing inquiry since the year 1995. The Respondent(s) action in this case plainly demonstrates non-compliance of the OM dated 14.09.1992 and the flagrant disregard for Division Bench’s judgment dated 24.12.2019”, added the Bench.
The High Court observed that the Respondents order declining to grant further promotions to the Petitioner beyond the rank of Deputy Commandant was in violation of the unequivocal directions issued by the Division Bench vide judgment dated Dec 24, 2019.
The High Court therefore, concluded that there was willful disobedience by the Respondent of the directions issued by the Division Bench with respect to the implementation of the directions with respect to pay fixation, seniority and all other consequential benefits including promotion.
Cause Title: Prakash Kumar Dixit v. Ajay Kumar Bhalla & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 4040]
Click here to read/download Judgment