P&H High Court Sets Deadline For Concluding Disciplinary Action Against Judges

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the High Court to ensure that all disciplinary enquiry against judges are completed within 6 months and 25 days.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice H.S. Grewal said, "The High Court is requested to ensure that in all, ongoing and as well as disciplinary inquiries to be initiated in the future, the following time line (6 months and 25 days) be adhered to failing which punitive action be taken against Inquiry Officer or any other erring personnel of the High Court."

The bench further said that, "Any delay caused or laxity on the part of the Inquiry Officer in concluding the disciplinary proceedings within six months ought to be viewed seriously and critically by the High Court giving, rise to a cause of misconduct on the part of Inquiry Officer unless there are cogent and compelling reasons for delay which ought to be put down in writing by the Inquiry Officer."

The development comes while hearing a plea moved by Additional Sessions Judge Sudhir Parmar, who was suspended in 2023 following filing of a bribery case against him. 

Parmar sought who has been charge sheeted on 24.07.2023 had sought an extra time to submit a written statement of defence (reply) to the said charge sheet.

After perusing the record, the bench found that, "the petitioner has missed the bus as regards the right to file a written statement of defence to the charge sheet. However, to adjudicate the said right of the petitioner, the facts stated above have to be tested on the anvil of the statutory provisions governing the proceedings in disciplinary proceedings for major penalty."

The Court noted that the petitioner being a member of superior judicial services of the State of Haryana in matters of disciplinary proceedings is governed by the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 2016 2016 Rules).

The bench found that as per the rules the time period of 45 days for submission of written statement of defence would start running after serving of charge sheet on 24.07.2023 till his arrest i.e. from 25.07.2023 till 09.08.2023, which is 16 days and the remaining after the release of petitioner from judicial custody i.e. 02.11.2023.

Thus, calculated from 24.07.2023, 45 days period expired on 01.12.2023 (16 days + 29 days = 45 days). However, no written statement of defence was submitted and Parmar kept seeking supply of various documents, it added.

Referring to Rule 7-A(7) of 2016 Rules, the Court highlighted that it mandates that "if no written statement of defence is submitted within a specified period or extended period, (respondents did not extend the period for submission of written statement of defence), the respondents are obliged under the law to appoint an Inquiry Officer for conducting enquiry proceedings which in this case was done as late as on 02.09.2024 by appointing an Inquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer. "

Speaking for the bench Chief Justice Nagu opined that, the object of providing timeline in mandatory terms serves dual purposes. "The delinquent employee is not kept in a state of uncertainty for indefinite period and the employer on the other hand also is not obliged to continue a tainted employee for long."

Any delay caused or laxity on the part of the Inquiry Officer in concluding the disciplinary proceedings within six months ought to be viewed seriously and critically by the High Court giving, rise to a cause of misconduct on the part of Inquiry Officer unless there are cogent and compelling reasons for delay which ought to be put down in writing by the Inquiry Officer, it further clarified.

In the present case the Court was surprised to note that "the first witness for the employer was examined as late as on 23.01.2025" and said "which speaks volumes about the lack of promptitude on the part of the Inquiry Officer and further failure of the High Court in exercising proper superintendence over the Inquiry Officer."

While noting that  the disciplinary proceedings are still pending against the trial court judge, the Court observed,

"Pertinently there is no judicial order in this case restraining the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority from proceeding ahead with the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the act of the Inquiry Officer in granting adjournments liberally for the purpose of filing of written statement of defence is not appreciable."

In the given facts and circumstances, the Inquiry Officer ought to have proceeded ex-parte against the delinquent employee on his failure to file the written statement of defence and proceeded to examine the witnesses and the documents produced by the employer instead of adjourning the proceedings repeatedly on one pretext or the other, it said further.

In the light of the above, the Court held that "petitioner has no right to seek further time to file written statement of defence after expiry of 45 days and more so when the employer had declined grant of extension of time for filing written statement of defence."

Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate and Mr. Rajat Sheokand, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate, for the respondents.

Title:Sudhir Pramar v. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and others

Click here to read/download the order