1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -79
275. Arrest for debt.
A Government servant against whom a proceeding has taken for his arrest for debt but who is not actually detained in custody may be placed under suspension only if disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated
[GI MOF O.M. No. 15(8)-E. IV/57 dated 28-3-1959).
276. Sum up of position by Delhi High Court
On the question whether inordinate delay in the issuance of charge sheet and/ or the completion of disciplinary inquiry, the Delhi High Court in Delhi Development Authority v. H.L. Saini, LPA No.52/1999 decided by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court on 29.10.2003, summed up the legal position beautifully in the following words :
"In our opinion the legal position, when an action is brought seeking quashing of a charge sheet on grounds of issuance of the charge sheet or grounds of inordinate delay in completion of the disciplinary inquiry may be crystalised as under :
(i) Unless the statutory rules prescribe a period of limitation for initiating disciplinary proceedings, there is no period limitation for initiating the disciplinary proceedings.
(ii) Since delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings or concluding the same are likely to cause prejudice to the charged employee, courts would be entitled to intervene and grant appropriate relief where an action is brought.
(iii) If bona fide and reasonable explanation for delay is brought on record by the disciplinary authority, in the absence of any special equity, the court would not intervene in the matter.
(iv) While considering these factors the court has to consider the speedy trial is a part of the facet of a fair procedure to which every delinquent is entitled to vis-Ã -vis the handicaps which the department may be suffering in the initiation of the proceedings. Balancing all the factors, it has to be considered whether prejudice to the defence on account of delay is made out and the delay is fatal, in the sense, that the delinquent is unable to effectively defend himself on account of delay.
(v) In considering the factual matrix, the court would ordinarily lean against preventing trial of the delinquent who is facing grave charges on the mere ground of delay. Quashing would not be ordered solely because of lapse of time between the date of commission of the offence and the date of service of the charge sheet unless, of course, the right of defence is found to be denied as a consequence of delay.
(vi) It is for the delinquent officer to show the prejudice caused or deprivation of fair trial because of the delay.
(vii) The sword of Damocles cannot be allowed to be kept hanging over ihe head of an employee and every employee is entitled to claim that the disciplinary inquiry should be completed against him within a reasonable time. Speedy trial is undoubtedly a part of reasonableness in every disciplinary inquiry.?"
Post a Comment