Petitioner sought to quash a departmental charge-sheet issued 29 years after alleged misconduct. Court held that inordinate, unexplained delay rendered the initiation unsustainable and quashed the proceedings, allowing the writ petition.
Charge-sheet dated 30.7.2001 quashed; writ petition allowed with consequential benefits.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ORDER
Ram Prasad Jajoo vs. The State of Raj. Ors.
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1737/2007 under Article 226 of the constitution of India.
Date of Order: 11th August 2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Mr. Devilal R. Vyas,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shridhar Mehta on behalf of Mr. Sachin Acharya, Advocate for the respondents-Municipal Council.
BY THE COURT:
“आर�प न�० 1
आप श� र�मपस�द ज�ज� सन� 1972 तक पररषद क� अध�न
2
(अन� र�जस� श�ख�) व�भ�ग म# ल%वपक&� क��' ह�त) तन�त रह� तथ� आपन� स�न,% क�-ऑपर�ट/� ब1क� क� प�स पररषद क& ररक पड� भ�लम पर अन)ज� क� आध�र पर क�बबन रख कर व��स�� करन� क� ल%ए द8 गई भ�लम ब�बत 18 क�बबन ह�लडस' क& पत��ल%��< स�ध�ररत क&। आपक� द�र� स�ध�ररत पत��ल%�? क� आपन� अन� र�जस� श�ख� स� सथ�न�नतरण क� सम� इस व�भ�ग क� पभ�र गहण करन� ��%� क� लसप�द' नह8� क& तथ� ग��ब कर द8। आपक� �ह कC त� घ�र द)र�चरण ह। आर�प न�० 2
आपन� सन� 1984 क� ब�द पद8� द)रप��ग करत� ह)ए स�न,% क�-ऑपर�ट/� बक क� प�स ससथत पररषद भ�लम क� आ�लशक भ�ग क� असथ�ई क�बबन रख कर व��स�� करन� क� ल%ए श� कल��णम% झ � र क� द� टद�� तथ� उनस� म�लसक अन)ज� श)लक प�प कर उसक� ननज� द)व�'नन��ग कर ल%��। इस� पक�र आपन� पररषद क& भ�लम क� आ�लशक भ�ग क� श� मन�हर भ�रत�/सज��%�% क� म�लसक अन)ज� श)लक पर असथ�ई छपपर %ग�कर व��स�न�क उप��ग करन� क& अन)मनत द8 तथ� उसस� म�लसक अन)ज� श)लक प�प कर उस� पररषद म# जम� नह8� कर�, स��� क� टहत क� ल%ए द)व�'नन��ग कर ल%��। आपक� �ह कC त� भ� घ�र द)र�चरण क& श�ण� म# आत� ह। आर�प न�० 3
आपन� पररषद भ�लम क� पररषद क� स��लमत� ए�� अध�पत� क& ज�नत� ह)ए ए�� म�नत� ह)ए इस भ�लम स� स�ब�धधत पररषद अलभ%�ख? क� स�ब�धधत क� नह8� स?प� तथ� आपन� पररषद भ�लम क� अपन� परर��र क� स��लमत� क& भ�लम ह�न� बत�त� ह)ए व���द उतपनन कक��। आपक� �ह कC त� भ� द)र�चरण क& श�ण� म# आत� ह*।"
3
were the documents requested for supplied. The petitioner was not supplied list of prosecution witnesses within a statutory period by the Presenting Officer. Aggrieved against the action of the respondentsauthorities in conducting the enquiry in violation of the Rules, the present writ petition has been filed.
& anr., 1990(2) SLR 798 to contend that initiation of
4
Departmental Enquiry after an inordinate delay cannot be sustained. Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment reported as P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 wherein the Supreme Court was pleased to quash the Departmental Enquiry which had been initiated after a delay of ten years. Reliance was also placed upon a judgment of this High Court reported as Vaidhya Dev Shankar Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and three others, 1994 (2) WLC(Raj.) 632 .
28 to contend that no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show cause notice. It has been further argued that the petitioner had committed serious financial irregularities while working in the revenue branch in the year 1972 and gave vacant land away. Moreover, he did not hand over files to the new incumbent. It is only in the year 2001 when facts about encroachment on the land came to the knowledge of the Municipal Council, decision was taken to charge-sheet the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents has also contended that the petitioner has been filing frivolous and futile applications before the Enquiry Officer and has not permitted the enquiry to commence. It is submitted that it is for the Enquiry Officer to write finding on the charges framed and it is
5
not within the purview of this Court to go into the merits of the case.
Singh(supra), the Supreme Court had quashed the charge-sheet on the ground of delay and that view has been consistently followed. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings which had been initiated by the department after a lapse of 12 years.
6
coming as to why the delay occurred in issuance of charge sheet pertaining to occurrence of the year 1972 and 1984. I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents who would contend that they came to know about encroachment on the land only in the year 2001 and after having come to know, the proceedings were initiated.
(JAISHREE THAKUR), J.
mlt.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a charge-sheet initiated nearly 29 years after the alleged misconduct can be allowed to proceed due to inordinate unexplained delay.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash a charge-sheet filed in a departmental disciplinary enquiry on grounds of laches and delay.
Whether the explanation of late discovery of encroachment justifies a 29-year delay in initiating enforcement proceedings against a retiring employee.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh & anr.Followed¶7
State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh & anr., 1990(2) SLR 798
P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing BoardReferred¶7
P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 · Who else cites this
Vaidhya Dev Shankar Sharma v. The State of RajasthanReferred¶7
Vaidhya Dev Shankar Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and three others, 1994 (2) WLC(Raj.) 632
Union of India & anr. v. Kunisetty SatyanarayanaDistinguished¶8
Union of India & anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Prasad Jajoo
The State of Raj.
Jaishree Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
