'Undue Delay Causes Mental Agony, Stigma': Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Timeline For Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings
Observing that "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," the Punjab & Haryana High Court issued set of guidelines for conducting departmental disciplinary proceedings by the Government authorities.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, that "the Court is witnessing multiple cases on a daily basis where the employees are aggrieved by whimsical timelines adopted by relevant authorities to conclude disciplinary proceedings initiated against them. In the present case itself, there was a delay of over a decade."
"With an intention to safeguard the constitutional guarantees provided under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India", the following directions are issued:
(i) The charge-sheet must be issued within a reasonable period.
(ii) The inquiry must be concluded within 6 months of issuance of the charge-sheet.
(iii) The Punishing Authority shall decide the matter within 3 months of receipt of the inquiry report.
(iv) The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal preferred against decision of the Punishing Authority within 3 months of filing of such an appeal.
(v) Thus, the entire process of disciplinary action must conclude within 01 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.
(vi) The Administrative Secretaries of the concerned departments as well as heads of relevant Boards and Corporations are also directed to conduct a quarterly review in order to ensure that the prescribed timeline is scrupulously followed and no disciplinary action is unjustly delayed.
The plea was filed by an employee of Haryana Government Khairati Lal, who retired in year 2006 and was served a charge sheet in the year 2009 for an incident from the year 2002-2003.
The charge sheet was issued 06 years after the occurrence of the alleged incident, after the petitioner had retired from service.
Justice Brar said, "Indubitably, the issuance of charge sheet at such a subsequent stage is barred by Rule.2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II."
"It is a settled issue that departmental proceedings cannot be initiated against an employee after his retirement, with regards to an event which took place over four years from the date of initiation of said proceedings," the Court added
The Court noted that in spite of various instructions issued by Punjab & Haryana Government, no change in approach has been discernible.
"Further, 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 concerned department 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," it added.
Justice Brar highlighted that crucially, the employer must conduct such proceedings diligently and without any unnecessary delay. Protracted enquiries 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, it added.
Thus, the Court said "it cannot allow the employer to keep the sword of disciplinary action dangling over an employee indefinitely."
In the light of the above, the charge sheet along with all consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. The respondent/competent authority was directed to release the all the retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment and any other consequential benefits accrued to the petitioner along with an interest of 7% per annum.
Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Singla, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Padmakant Dwivedi, Advocate with Ms. Ayushi, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.
Title: Khairati Lal v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 409