The Court did not quash the disciplinary proceedings for delay. Instead, it directed the enquiring authority to complete the enquiry within 30 days as per the Society for Rural Development Services Disciplinary Rules, treating the rules as a guiding factor for justice.
Direction to complete the disciplinary enquiry within 30 days of the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION No.2726 of 2020
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2, 3 and 5, who are the main answering respondents. Learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing the 1st respondent is present.
Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to a copy of the Society for Rural Development Services Disciplinary Rules, 2012 (in short ‘SRDS’ Rules’). He relies upon on clause 6 (2)(i) to (vii) of SRDS’ Rules, which mandate that all the disciplinary proceedings initiated for any irregularity shall be completed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of detection of such omissions and commissions. Learned counsel submits that although the show cause notice was issued in the month of September, 2019 and the reply was submitted on 20.09.2019, till date, nothing has been finalised. Therefore, he submits that suspension order should be revoked and the petitioner should be directed to be taken into service.
In reply to this, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer for personal hearing that was held on 08.01.2020. He submits that due to administrative lapses, the time frame could not be adhered to and states that the 3rd respondent may be directed to complete the enquiry since substantial progress has already been made.
2
Learned counsel for the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj representing the 1st respondent also support the argument advanced by the learned Standing Counsel.
At this stage, without going into the merits and demerits of the interpretation of the Rules, instead of setting aside the enquiry proceedings on the ground that the time has lapsed, this Court is of the opinion that the interests of justice would be served if the 3rd respondent is directed to complete the enquiry in all respects keeping in view the rule position which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to adhere to the time frame and the other stipulations in Rule 6(2) of the SRDS’ Rules and the said Rules may be taken as a guiding factor to complete the enquiry in all respects within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J
Date : 13.02.2020 GR
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No.2726 of 2020
Date: 12.02.2020
GR
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the disciplinary enquiry proceedings violating the 30-day mandate of SRDS Rules should be quashed or directed to be completed.
Relief for the petitioner seeking revocation of suspension and direction to be taken into service due to delay in enquiry.
Petitioner
Respondent 2
Respondent 3
Respondent 5
Respondent 1
D.V.S.S. Somayajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
