The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed the long-pending departmental proceedings against Varinder Kumar, a retired Forest Range Officer, citing “undue delay” in the conclusion of the inquiry process. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, mandates the immediate release of all withheld retiral benefits to the petitioner, treating the suspension period as time served in service.
Background of the Case:
Varinder Kumar, who joined the Forest Department as a Guard in 1977 and retired as a Forest Range Officer in 2016, was suspended two months prior to his retirement. The suspension was based on a charge-sheet issued by the Forest Department on April 27, 2016, alleging that Kumar had obtained his job using a fake Schedule Caste Certificate. This led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1975.
Despite the submission of the inquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on May 28, 2022, no decision was made to either accept or reject the report, leaving Kumar in a state of uncertainty and depriving him of his retiral benefits for over eight years.
Legal Issues Involved:
The case revolved around the legality and propriety of prolonged departmental inquiries and their impact on the employee’s rights, particularly after retirement. The petitionerโs counsel, Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Senior Advocate, supported by Ms. Nisha Nalot, argued that the inordinate delay in concluding the proceedings and the continued withholding of Kumarโs retiral benefits constituted an abuse of process and was in violation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the timely completion of such inquiries.
The respondents, represented by Advocate General Mr. Anup Rattan and Deputy Advocate General Mr. Sumit Sharma, contended that the delay was due to the ongoing correspondence between various departments to gather additional information.
Court’s Decision:
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, after examining the facts and the relevant rules, held that the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority in delaying the final decision was contrary to Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1975. The Court emphasized that there is no provision allowing the Disciplinary Authority to seek external assistance after receiving the inquiry report, as was done in this case. The judge further cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi (2015), which mandates that departmental inquiries should ideally be concluded within six months, with a maximum allowable extension to one year.
Justice Goel noted that “the outer limit that has been fixed for taking a departmental inquiry proceeding to its logical conclusion is one year.” He observed that the eight-year delay in this case was “unacceptable and has undoubtedly caused extreme hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner.”
Key Observations:
In his judgment, Justice Goel made a pointed observation on the undue delay, stating, “In the present case, what to talk of one year as of now eight years have passed… This undoubtedly has caused extreme hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner as his retiral benefits have not been released to him even after eight years of his superannuation.”
Also Read
The Court quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against Varinder Kumar and revoked his suspension order. It also directed the authorities to release all due retiral benefits, including statutory interest, without any further delay.
