Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar directed the State Government to implement a set of guidelines for ensuring timely completion of departmental disciplinary proceedings. The Court observed that undue prolongation of such inquiries causes mental distress, financial hardship, and social stigma to employees even before charges are proven, amounting to punishment by delay. Citing frequent cases of arbitrary timelines and noting that the proceedings in the present matter had remained pending for over a decade, the Court directed adherence to uniform and time-bound procedures by the authorities.

The matter arose from departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated by the State Government against a public employee serving under its administrative control. The proceedings were instituted on allegations of misconduct relating to the discharge of official duties. After issuance of a charge sheet, the inquiry process remained pending for an extended period exceeding ten years without conclusion. During this time, the employee continued to face uncertainty regarding service status and retirement benefits.

Also Read: [Art. 226]: High Courts Not to Exercise Writ Jurisdiction in Service Matters Within Tribunal’s Scope: Supreme Court

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking intervention against the prolonged pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and the consequential hardship caused by the delay. It was contended that the authorities had failed to adhere to any prescribed or reasonable timeframe for completion of the inquiry, leading to mental distress, financial loss, and reputational damage. The petitioner further submitted that such delays violated principles of natural justice and fairness inherent in service jurisprudence.

In response, the State authorities attributed the delay to procedural requirements and administrative lapses, contending that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with departmental rules and that no prejudice had been caused. The record of the inquiry, including relevant documents and correspondence exchanged between departments, was placed before the Court for examination.

The matter involved consideration of the legal framework governing disciplinary proceedings under service law, including provisions relating to conduct rules, inquiry procedures, and timelines prescribed for completion of departmental actions. The Court also referred to prior precedents on the obligation of the State to conclude such proceedings within a reasonable period to prevent hardship to employees pending inquiry

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar recorded that the petitioner had retired on December 31, 2006, and that "neither any charge sheet was pending nor charges were framed by a Court of competent jurisdiction trying the petitioner as accused." The Court observed that the charge sheet issued on January 21, 2009, was related to alleged misconduct from the crop year 2002-03, noting that "Curiously, the charge sheet was issued six years after the occurrence of the alleged incident, after the petitioner had retired from service."

Citing Sub Inspector Puran Chand (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab and others (2000(3) SCT 515), the Court stated that "in case a departmental proceeding is to be initiated against an employee after his retirement, it cannot be in respect of an event which took place more than four years from the date when the proceeding is initiated."

The Court observed: "When delay taints disciplinary proceedings, they lose their character as an instrument of justice and turn into mechanisms of torment and unwarranted suffering." The Court noted that the punishing authority took nearly 13 years to conclude the proceedings without any reasonable explanation for the delay or attribution of fault to the petitioner. "As such, since the conduct of the petitioner does not indicate any laxity, the delay alone would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings in its entirety," the judgment recorded.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakishan (1998) 4 SCC 154, the Court held that "it is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated, each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case." The Court further quoted, "If the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it."

The Court also referred to P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636, where the Supreme Court held that "allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant," observing that "the appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings." Similarly, in State of Punjab vs. Chaman Lal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570, the Court noted that delayed initiation of proceedings "is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power," and that "if the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges."

Justice Brar further held that delayed disciplinary proceedings violate Article 21 of the Constitution, stating: "Timely determination of guilt or innocence of the accused employee is an integral and essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India." The Court noted that it was witnessing multiple cases where disciplinary authorities had adopted whimsical timelines, and held that any such practice "would fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Also Read: Mere Allegations of Harassment Over Dowry and Childlessness Not Sufficient for Proving Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Mother-in-Law

Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the charge sheet dated January 21, 2009, and all consequential proceedings. It directed the competent authority to release all retiral benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment, and any other consequential benefits, along with interest at 7% per annum. The interest was to be calculated from the date on which the benefits became due until actual payment.

The Court directed that the charge sheet must be issued within a reasonable period, the inquiry concluded within six months of issuance, and the punishing authority must decide the matter within three months of receiving the inquiry report. It further ordered that any appeal against the decision must be decided within three months. "Thus, the entire process of disciplinary action must conclude within one year at the most. Any unexplained or inordinate delay beyond this period shall vitiate the proceedings and invite an adverse inference against the disciplinary authority." It also directed administrative secretaries and heads of Boards and Corporations to conduct quarterly reviews to ensure compliance with these timelines.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Singla, AAG, Haryana, and Mr. Padmakant Dwivedi, Advocate with Ms. Ayushi, Advocate.

Case Title: Khairati Lal vs. State of Haryana and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:141236
Case Number: CWP-9606-2022 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar