1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -75
261. Delay in finalising the proceedings.
The principle is that the delay shall not be a vitiating factor if it can be explained to the satisfaction of the court. In a recent judgment State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995)2 SCC 570, the Supreme Court concretised the law in following words :
“If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the Court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the inquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a process of balancing.” (para 9)
262. Mere Designation of the post may be misleading
The procedure to find out the corresponding authority by mere designation is erroneous because, many a time, the designations do not provide equality of rank. What is material is the ‘rank’ and, hence, the designation a post may be carrying is not of much importance. [Union of India v. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1970 SC 122 (Para 8); Union of India v. Ram Kishan, AIR 1971 SC 1402].
263. The protection is guaranteed as on the date of original appointment. Any subsequent authorisation of power cannot whittle it down
In Krishna Kumar v. Divil. Asstt. E.E., Nagpur, AIR 1979 SC 1912, the Supreme Court observed -
“Whether or not an authority is subordinate in rank to another has to be determined with reference to the state of affairs existing on the date of appointment. It is at that point that the Constitutional guarantee under Article 311(1) becomes available to the person holding, for example, a civil post under the Union Government, that he shall not be removed or dismissed by an authority subordinate to that which appoints him. The subsequent authorisation to appointments to that post does not confer on him power to remove the persons appointed earlier.”
The same view was taken in Management of D.T. U. v. B.B.L. Hajeley, AIR 1972 SC 2452, para 10.
264. initial lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured in appeal
Where original order was passed by a lower authority in violation of the provisions of Art. 311(1), the fact that the order was adjudged as correct, in-appeal, by the proper authority, could not validate the order. The reason is – “The original order of dismissal of the first respondent being without jurisdiction and as such void and inoperative having been passed in contravention of the provisions of Article 311(1) of the Constitution, the order passed on appeal by the General Manager could not cure the initial defect.”
[Mysore S.R.T. Corpn. v. Mirja Khasim Ali Beg, AIR 1977 SC 747]
Post a Comment