Delaying Decision In Service Appeal For 7 Yrs Without Any Reason Amounts To Denial Of Justice: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court has frowned upon the 7 years delay in deciding a service appeal by the appellate authority under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.“I am of the view that withholding a service appeal, without any reason, for as long as seven years, amounts to denial of justice on the ground of sheer delay,” said the bench of Justice...
Rajasthan High Court has frowned upon the 7 years delay in deciding a service appeal by the appellate authority under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.
“I am of the view that withholding a service appeal, without any reason, for as long as seven years, amounts to denial of justice on the ground of sheer delay,” said the bench of Justice Arun Monga.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a government teacher (petitioner) against an appellate order under the Rules. The appellate order upheld the punishment imposed by the District Education Officer (“Disciplinary Authority”) of withholding petitioner's increment for three years without cumulative effect.
The punishment was imposed pursuant to a departmental enquiry against the petitioner which was conducted in relation to an unpleasant engagement between him and another teacher at the school. The petitioner had made certain allegations against the teacher followed by pulling him out from the school and painting his face black. These actions were regarding the alleged illicit relationships between the teacher and the two female students of the school.
The departmental inquiry found the petitioner to be guilty of misconduct and awarded punishment of stopping three years' of increment. A departmental appeal was preferred against this decision under Rule 23 of the Rules which was dismissed after 7 years of filing the appeal. The petitioner filed the present writ petition against the appellate order.
Primarily, the Court observed that the appellate authority had not followed the procedure laid down in Rule 30 of the Rules before passing the order. It was held that Rule 30(2) was a self-contained code and was binding to ensure a thorough and fair review process of appeals.
“The criteria mandated therein is binding on the appellate authority so as to ensure a through and fair review process for appeals against penalties, taking into account procedural compliance, factual accuracy, justification for the penalty, and the appropriateness of the penalty itself. However, all of it seems to have been given a complete short shrift.”
Secondly, the Court observed that prolonging the decision in a service appeal for as long as seven years, in the absence of any reason, resulted in denial of justice on the basis of sheer delay. The Court held that even after prolonging the decision for seven years, there was a lack of careful consideration of the case. The name of the petitioner was recorded wrong in the appellate order in many instances. There were several factual fallacies in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate authority. Furthermore, the appellate order was unreasoned as it did not address the merits of the case. The Court opined that such failure to properly engage with the case rendered the decision both unsound and arbitrary.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate authority were set aside.
Title: Madan Lal v the State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 119