Delay in disciplinary proceedings itself a punishment: HC

Holding that “every delinquent employee has a legitimate right to have disciplinary proceedings concluded expeditiously”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that undue prolongation of such proceedings causes “mental agony, financial hardship and social stigma” and becomes “a punishment in itself”.

Taking up two petitions filed by employees against the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and other respondents, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed “when delay is abnormal and remains unexplained by the department, prejudice to the delinquent is presumed.”

Giving details, Justice Brar asserted that the employee might suffer from loss of evidence, non-availability of witnesses, fading memory and inability to defend effectively. “While serious charges may warrant continuation, prolonged delay without justification tilts the balance in favour of quashing the proceedings,” the Bench added.

Referring to the responsibility of the employer in proceedings against the employees in such cases, Justice Brar added that the employer was duty-bound to conduct proceedings “diligently and without unnecessary delay.”

“Protracted enquiries defeat the very purpose of disciplinary mechanism; instead of ensuring efficiency, integrity and accountability they breed inefficiency, demoralisation, and distrust in the system,” Justice Brar observed.

The court went on to add that “a lack of seriousness in pursuing charges reflects poorly on the administration and may indicate malice or oblique motives.” It asserted that the employer could not be permitted to keep the sword of disciplinary action dangling over an employee indefinitely.

In one of the petitions, counsel for the petitioner argued that the employee was suspended on May 16, 2011, but the punishment order was passed only after four-and-a-half years, rendering the proceedings vitiated due to inordinate delay.

Accepting the contention, Justice Brar asserted: “In view of the above, both the writ petitions are allowed to the extent of treating the suspension period of the petitioner as duty period. Respondents/competent authority are directed to release all retirement dues including leave encashment and gratuity with interest at six per cent per annum on the delayed payment to be calculated after two months of retirement of petitioner.”

The court further directed that the “needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”