Delay In Conducting Disciplinary Enquiry Does Not Ipso Facto Vitiate It: Supreme Court

Every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated, the Supreme Court observed.

The bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli observed that the prejudice caused by the delay must be demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise.

In this case, a departmental inquiry was initiated against a police officer who allegedly constituted, supervised and operated a gunda squad, after it was revealed that some members of such a squad arrested a person who later died in police custody. A magisterial enquiry was conducted into the custodial death and a report was submitted on 10 October 2014. On 8 June 2016, a departmental enquiry was convened against the officer and a charge-sheet was issued. Central Administrative Tribunal, on his application, quashed the chargesheet on the ground that there was a delay of nearly two years and that the charges were ambiguous;  

In appeal, the court, referring to the charge-sheet, noted that it contains a detailed elaboration of the allegations against the officer.

"It does not leave the recipient in a measure of doubt or ambiguity over the nature of the case he is required to answer in the disciplinary enquiry. The finding that the charge is vague is palpably in error.", the bench said.

The court said that the Tribunal would have been justified in directing the expeditious conclusion of the enquiry, but instead, it proceeded to quash the enquiry in its entirety.

"This, in our view, was clearly impermissible. Every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is being enquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise. Apart from submitting that the first respondent was unable to proceed on deputation or to seek promotion, there is no basis on which it could be concluded that his right to defend himself stands prejudicially affected by a delay of two years in concluding the enquiry", the court said.

Allowing the appeal, the court said that since chargesheet was issued to the officer while he was in service, the disciplinary enquiry can proceed to its logical conclusion. It should be concluded expeditiously, preferably by 31 July 2022, the bench said.

Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs Akhilesh Jha ; CA 5153 of 2021

Citation: LL 2021 SC 436 

Coram: Justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli

Counsel: Deputy AG Ankita Chaudhary for state, Adv Braj K Mishra for respondent

Click here to Read/Download Judgment