In a notable ruling reinforcing procedural fairness in service jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has held that continuing disciplinary proceedings beyond the period prescribed by a judicial authority, without seeking an extension, “could give rise to apprehensions of bias.” The Court underlined that halting the proceedings and applying for an extension is essential to uphold the balance of interests between employer and employee.
A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against Ram Prakash Singh, a retired Assistant Engineer. The State had challenged the Allahabad High Court’s judgment which upheld the Uttar Pradesh State Public Services Tribunal’s decision quashing the punishment imposed on Singh.
Background
Singh was serving in the District Panchayat, Kushinagar, and faced charges of embezzlement during 2004–2005. A disciplinary inquiry, based on audit reports, led to a punishment order dated 26 July 2010, imposing dismissal and a recovery of ₹10.25 lakh. This order was challenged and set aside by the Tribunal on 23 January 2014 for being based on an irregular enquiry.
The Tribunal granted the State three months to restart proceedings from the stage of reply. However, without seeking an extension after the deadline expired in April 2014, the State proceeded with a fresh punishment order dated 24 March 2015, reducing Singh’s pension by 5% for five years and again ordering recovery.
This second punishment order was also challenged before the Tribunal, which quashed it for breach of procedural rules—especially for not supplying the enquiry report to the respondent—and for failing to seek a time extension as required. The High Court affirmed this decision, leading to the State’s appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Bench strongly criticized the procedural lapses committed by the disciplinary authority. Emphasizing the necessity of seeking extension when bound by judicial timelines, the Court observed:
“Proceeding despite objection and without there being an extension could give rise to apprehensions of bias. Therefore, applying for extension upon halting the proceedings awaiting order on the application would be an advisable course of action to balance the interests of both the employer and the employee.”
The Court held that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, as no oral evidence was recorded, documents were not proven, and the respondent was not given a copy of the enquiry report—contravening Rule 9(4). The Court reiterated that such violations vitiate the enquiry itself.
Precedents Cited
Referring to Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, the Court highlighted that furnishing the enquiry report is a mandatory procedural safeguard, and failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid. It further clarified that the burden of showing “prejudice” does not override the legal obligation to supply the report when the rule itself is of a mandatory nature.
Dismissing the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s directive restoring Singh’s full service benefits. It held that the continuation of disciplinary proceedings after the expiry of the Tribunal’s timeline, without obtaining permission, was unlawful and prejudicial.
Citation: State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow vs. Ram Prakash Singh, Civil Appeal No. 14724 of 2024
