हिमाचल प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने अनुसूचित जाति का फर्जी प्रमाण पत्र इस्तेमाल करने के आरोपी वन विभाग के सेवानिवृत्त अधिकारी के खिलाफ विभागीय कार्यवाही को रद्द कर दिया है। न्यायालय ने जांच पूरी करने में हुई अस्वीकार्य देरी का हवाला देते हुए उनके रोके गए सेवानिवृत्ति लाभों को तत्काल जारी करने का भी आदेश दिया।जस्टिस अजय मोहन गोयल ने फैसला सुनाते हुए कहा, “यह नियोक्ता का कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि दोषी कर्मचारी के खिलाफ शुरू की गई विभागीय जांच प्राथमिकता के आधार पर कम से कम समय में पूरी हो।”
न्यायालय ने कर्मचारी को अनावश्यक परेशानी से बचाने के लिए अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही में निर्धारित समयसीमा का पालन करने के महत्व को रेखांकित किया। वन विभाग द्वारा आरोप पत्र जारी किए जाने के बाद याचिकाकर्ता, जो कि पूर्व वन रेंज अधिकारी है, को अप्रैल 2016 में अपनी सेवानिवृत्ति से ठीक दो महीने पहले निलंबित कर दिया गया था।यद्यपि जांच अधिकारी ने मई 2022 में अनुशासनात्मक प्राधिकारी को जांच रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत की, लेकिन आगे कोई कार्रवाई नहीं की गई, जिसके कारण कार्यवाही शुरू होने से आठ साल से अधिक समय तक देरी हुई। जांच रिपोर्ट पर कार्रवाई करने में प्रतिवादियों की विफलता और विभिन्न क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों से अतिरिक्त जानकारी मांगने के लिए उनके बाद के पत्राचार केंद्रीय सिविल सेवा (वर्गीकरण, नियंत्रण और अपील) नियम, 1965 के नियम 15 के प्रावधानों के विपरीत थे।यह नियम अनिवार्य करता है कि जांच रिपोर्ट प्राप्त करने के बाद अनुशासनात्मक प्राधिकारी को मामले को आगे की जांच के लिए जांच प्राधिकारी को वापस भेजना चाहिए या असहमति के किसी भी संभावित कारण के साथ रिपोर्ट को दोषी अधिकारी को भेजना चाहिए।अदालत ने आगे कहा कि विभागीय जांच के समापन में लंबे समय तक देरी से याचिकाकर्ता को अनुचित कठिनाई हुई है, जिससे उसे लंबे समय तक अपने उचित सेवानिवृत्ति लाभों से वंचित होना पड़ा है।अदालत ने प्रेम नाथ बाली बनाम रजिस्ट्रार, दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट का हवाला देते हुए इस बात पर जोर दिया कि अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही को उचित समय सीमा के भीतर हल किया जाना चाहिए, जिसमें इस तरह की देरी से कर्मचारी के अधिकारों पर पड़ने वाले हानिकारक प्रभावों पर प्रकाश डाला गया है
प्रेम नाथ बाली बनाम रजिस्ट्रार, दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस बात पर जोर दिया कि अनुशासनात्मक जांच उचित अवधि के भीतर पूरी होनी चाहिए, आदर्श रूप से छह महीने के भीतर और असाधारण परिस्थितियों में एक वर्ष से अधिक नहीं, ताकि अनुचित कठिनाई को रोका जा सके और कर्मचारियों के अधिकारों की रक्षा की जा सके।
प्रतिवादियों की ओर से अनुचित देरी और प्रक्रियात्मक चूक को देखते हुए, न्यायालय ने याचिकाकर्ता के खिलाफ विभागीय कार्यवाही को रद्द कर दिया, जिसमें निलंबन आदेश भी शामिल है।परिणामस्वरूप, न्यायालय ने निर्देश दिया कि याचिकाकर्ता को देय सभी सेवानिवृत्ति लाभ वैधानिक ब्याज के साथ तुरंत जारी किए जाएं। निलंबन अवधि को सभी उद्देश्यों के लिए सेवा में बिताए गए समय के रूप में माना जाने का भी आदेश दिया गया।
High Court of H.P.
2024:HHC:5915
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 9379 of 2023
Decided on 16th July, 2024
Varinder Kumar
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Senior
Advocate, with Ms. Nisha Nalot,
Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,
with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter
alia, prayed for the following relief:-
“That due to undue delay in conclusion of
departmental inquiry proceedings on the part of
the respondents, the charge-sheet issued by the
respondent No. 1 (Forests Department,
Government of H.P.) against the petitioner vide
Memorandum dated 27.04.2016 (Annexure P-2)
may be treated as lapsed or closed and
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2024 23:02:47 :::CIS
High Court of H.P.
2
accordingly, quashed and set aside. Also
suspension order dated 27.04.2016 (Annexure
P-1) may be ordered to be revoked. Resultantly,
all consequential actions, taken or proposed to
be taken against the petitioner, may also be
ordered to be terminated and the same may be
directed to be considered non-est ab-initio. The
respondents may be directed to pay arrears of
salary and allowances payable to the petitioner
during the period of his suspension upto the
date of superannuation after deducting the
suspension allowance, if any, paid for the said
period and also to release all other due and
pending retiral benefits applicable to the
petitioner otherwise payable to him in
accordance with extant rules and regulations,
more specifically, payment of regular pension
alongwith commutation of pension and also
release of death-cum-retirement gratuity
alongwith amount payable to the petitioner
under Group Insurance Scheme (GIS).”
2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the
Forest Department as a Guard on 24.03.1977. He was
promoted against the post of Deputy Forest Ranger in the year
1998 and against the post of Forest Range Officer in the year
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2024 23:02:47 :::CIS
High Court of H.P.
3
2012. He superannuated from service on 30.06.2016 after
putting in more than 39 years of service. Two months before his
retirement, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide
Annexure P-1 i.e. order dated 27.04.2016. On this very day, a
memorandum contemplating to initiate an inquiry against the
petitioner was also issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)
Rule 1975 and a charge sheet (Annexure P-2) was served
upon the petitioner by respondent No.1. It is further the case of
the petitioner that the inquiry report was submitted to the
Disciplinary Authority on 28.05.2022, by the Inquiry Officer, but,
no decision even after a lapse of considerable time, either
accepting or rejecting the inquiry report stood taken by the
authority concerned. It is further the grievance of the petitioner
that on account of this Departmental Inquiry, the post retiral
benefits of the petitioner as stand mentioned in the writ petition
have been withheld by the authorities.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
argued that in the present case, the Departmental inquiry was
initiated against the petitioner just a few months before his
superannuation in the year 2016. The inquiry proceedings in
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2024 23:02:47 :::CIS
High Court of H.P.
4
the Departmental inquiry were concluded as far back as in the
year 2022 and since the submission of the report of the inquiry
report by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority, till
date, no action thereupon has been taken. He further submitted
that as the period within which the inquiry ought to have been
taken to its logical conclusion has expired, therefore, the
petition be allowed, memorandum dated 27.04.2016, be treated
as lapsed and closed and suspension order may also be
revoked and respondents be directed to pay all retiral benefits
to the petitioner, to which, he is entitled.
4. State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on
the basis of the reply filed to the writ petition. Learned
Additional Advocate General has submitted that after the
inquiry report was received by the Disciplinary Authority, the
Authority sought some additional information related to the
case from respondent No.2, but, as information was not
available and not coming forth from the concerned field offices
and as the matter was under correspondence, therefore, action
was not yet taken on the inquiry report, but, it would soon be
taken. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition being
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2024 23:02:47 :::CIS
High Court of H.P.
5
devoid of merit be dismissed, because, the allegation against
the petitioner was serious that he had obtained the job on the
basis of a fake Schedule Caste Certificate.
5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, as well as learned Additional Advocate General and I
have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as
documents appended therewith.
6. The facts are not much under dispute. The
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner a
few months before his superannuation, in terms of charge
sheet (Annexure P-2) and it is also not in dispute that the
Inquiry Officer submitted his report after the completion of the
inquiry to the Disciplinary Authority in the year 2022.
7. Now, the stand of the respondents is that after the
Disciplinary Authority received the report from the Inquiry
Officer, it sent a communication to respondent No.2 and sought
certain information from the concerned field offices and as the
matter remained under correspondence for some time and as
after receiving the requisite information, respondent No.2 had
again referred the matter to respondent No.1 for taking
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2024 23:02:47 :::CIS
High Court of H.P.
6
necessary decision on the inquiry report, therefore, there is no
merit in the writ petition.
8. On the face of the contents of the reply filed by the
respondents-Department, this Court would like to make an
observation that the procedure that has been followed in the
present case by the respondents, more so, by the Disciplinary
Authority after the receipt of the inquiry report contrary to the
provisions of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Rule 15 (supra)
relates to action on the inquiry report and Rule 15(1) and 15(2),
which are relevant for the purpose of the decision of this writ
petition reads as under:-
“(1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself
the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the
inquiring authority for further inquiry and report
and the inquiring authority shall thereupon
proceed to hold the further inquiry according to
the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be.
(2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or
cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of
the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary
authority or where the disciplinary authority is
not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2024 23:02:47 :::CIS
High Court of H.P.
7
of the inquiring authority together with its own
tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with
the findings of inquiring authority on any article
of charge to the Government servant who shall
be required to submit, if he so desires, his
written representation or submission to the
disciplinary authority within fifteen days,
irrespective of whether the report is favourable
or not to the Government servant.”
9. In terms of the above quoted provisions, the
Disciplinary Authority, after the receipt of the inquiry report, if
not satisfied with the inquiry report may remit the case to the
Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report, otherwise, the
Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a
copy of the report of the inquiry to the delinquent Officer with
his tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings
of the Inquiring Authority calling upon the Government Servant
to submit his response thereto. There is no provision in Rule 15
that the Disciplinary Authority after receiving the inquiry report
can seek the assistance of any other authority to go into the
veracity of the inquiry report as has been done in the present
case by respondent No.1 by seeking information from
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2024 23:02:47 :::CIS
High Court of H.P.
8
respondent No.2.
10. Besides this, there is another important aspect
relating to the undue delay that has taken place in the
conclusion of the departmental proceedings. The proceedings
were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2016 and the
inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority
somewhere in the year 2022 and till date the disciplinary
proceedings have not been taken to their logical conclusion.
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prem Nath Bali versus
Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another (2015) 16 Supreme
Court Cases 415, has been pleased to hold that the Hon’ble
Court has emphasized time and again that it is the duty of the
employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated
against the delinquent employee is concluded within the
shortest possible time by taking priority measures. Hon’ble
Supreme Court has further held that every employer (whether
State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the
departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the
delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority
to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2024 23:02:47 :::CIS
High Court of H.P.
9
concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not
possible for the employer to conclude due to certain
unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time
frame then efforts should be made to conclude within
reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the
nature of inquiry but not more than a year.
11. Thus, in terms of the said judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the outer limit that has been fixed for taking a
departmental inquiry proceeding to its logical conclusion is one
year. In the present case, what to talk of one year as of now 8
years have passed. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was in force as on the date when the disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner. Yet,
the same have not been concluded till date, which undoubtedly
has caused extreme hardship and inconvenience to the
petitioner as his retiral benefits have not been released to him
even after 8 years of his superannuation.
12. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, as the
departmental proceedings have not been taken to their logical
conclusion expeditiously and within the time frame mentioned
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2024 23:02:47 :::CIS
High Court of H.P.
10
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali’s case
(supra), this writ petition is allowed by quashing the
departmental proceedings that were initiated against the
petitioner vide Annexure P-2, as well as the order of
suspension passed against him. In the light of the departmental
proceedings having been quashed by this Court, it is ordered
that the retiral benefits that are due to the petitioner be released
to him forthwith without any undue delay alongwith such
statutory interest as is permissible in law. Suspension period be
treated as period in service, for all purposes.
13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also
stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 16, 2024
(Vinod)
::: Downloaded on – 08/08/2024 23:02:47 :::CIS