HC fixes one-year cap on disciplinary proceedings, says delay violates Articles 14 and 21

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that all departmental disciplinary proceedings must conclude at the most within a year of initiation, holding that the “court cannot allow the employer to keep the sword of disciplinary action dangling over an employee indefinitely”.

In all, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar issued seven comprehensive directions to ensure that the process of inquiry, punishment, and appeal was completed within the prescribed time frame. The Bench made it clear that any unexplained or inordinate delay beyond the one-year period would vitiate the proceedings and invite an adverse inference against the disciplinary authority.

The ruling came in a case where disciplinary proceedings dragged on for over 13 years. The petitioner, who retired in 2006, was served a charge-sheet in 2009 for an alleged incident dating back to 2002–03. “Curiously, the charge-sheet was issued six years after the occurrence of the alleged incident, after the petitioner had retired from service,” Justice Brar observed.

Delay turns justice into torment

Observing that delayed proceedings defeated the very object of justice, Justice Brar asserted: “Every employee facing disciplinary action has a legitimate right to have the proceedings concluded expeditiously. Undue prolongation of proceedings often causes mental agony, financial hardship, and social stigma, even before the charges are proven, which is a punishment in itself.”

Justice Brar added disciplinary proceedings – when delayed – lost their character as an instrument of justice and turned into mechanisms of torment and unwarranted suffering. “When delay taints disciplinary proceedings, they lose their character as an instrument of justice and turn into mechanisms of torment and unwarranted suffering. As such, disciplinary proceedings ought to adhere to established timelines or else it morphs into punishment that does not further the cause of justice.”

Noting that the punishment order was passed 13 years after initiating proceedings, Justice Brar observed that reasonable explanation had not been offered to justify the delay or attribute it to the petitioner. “Since the conduct of the petitioner does not indicate any laxity, the delay alone would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings in its entirety,” Justice Brar held.

Prolonged suspension cannot be indefinite

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar further cautioned against misuse of the power of suspension: “Oftentimes, the accused-employee is placed under protracted suspension while the disciplinary proceedings continue at snail’s pace. The provision for suspension in the applicable rules cannot be understood to mean that the employee can be suspended indefinitely. If the allegations are such that the department concerned feels the need to continue an employee’s suspension, such action ought to be made with due care and after providing reasons for the same.”

The court added that unexplained delay caused prejudice to the accused-employee, who might lose access to evidence and witnesses over time. As such, delay alone was a considerable ground to suffocate the proceedings.

Right to expeditious conclusion part of Article 21

Justice Brar asserted that failure to complete disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable period infringed upon the employee’s fundamental rights. “Any procedure which does not ensure the culmination of disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable dispatch would fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 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.”

The Bench added: “This court witnesses multiple cases on a daily basis where employees are aggrieved by whimsical timelines adopted by relevant authorities”. As such, directions were required to be issued to safeguard constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.

Justice Brar directed that the charge-sheet must be issued within a reasonable period and the inquiry must be concluded within six months of its issuance. The punishing authority would decide the matter within three months of receiving the inquiry report, and the appellate authority would dispose of any appeal filed against the decision of the punishing authority within three months of its filing. The Court made it clear that any unexplained or inordinate delay beyond this period shall vitiate the proceedings and invite an adverse inference against the disciplinary authority.

Justice Brar further directed that the Administrative Secretaries of the departments concerned and the heads of relevant Boards and Corporations would conduct quarterly reviews to ensure that the prescribed timeline was scrupulously followed and no disciplinary action was unjustly delayed. He also directed the Chief Secretaries of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, to issue necessary instructions for strict compliance of these directions within six weeks and to submit compliance reports within three months.

Protracted inquiries breed inefficiency and distrust

Warning against institutional complacency, Justice Brar added: “Protracted inquiries breed inefficiency, demoralization, and distrust in the system, thereby defeating the very purpose of disciplinary mechanism established to ensure that principles of efficiency, integrity and accountability are upheld. A lack of seriousness in pursuing charges reflects poorly on the administration and may indicate malice or oblique motives.”

Petition allowed; benefits with 7% interest ordered

Allowing the petition, Justice Brar quashed the charge-sheet dated January 21, 2009, along with all consequential proceedings. The respondent authority was directed to release all retirement benefits, including gratuity, leave encashment, and other consequential dues, along with interest at 7 per cent per annum, calculated from the date they became due till the date of actual payment.