The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 5834 of 2025 Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Mumbai & Others …. Petitioners Mr. S.K. Purohit, Advocate -versus- Nakka Laximinaryan Reddy & Another …. Opp. Parties Mr. T.K. Dash, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 09.04.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). 2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the order dated 11.08.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in allowing the Original Application filed by the Opposite Party No.1, Nakka Laxminarayan Reddy and quashing the order dated 24.04.2019 issued by the Respondent No.2 i.e. Joint Chief Executive Officer, Khadi & Village Industries Commission directing for initiation of a de novo enquiry against the Opposite Party No.1. From the factual scenario, it appears that the Opposite Party No.1 while working as Supervisor III (FBI) at Sub-Office, KVIC, Sambalpur was placed under orders of suspension on 11.01.2010 on the basis of information vide letter dated 31.12.2009 of the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar and a disciplinary proceeding as well as criminal proceeding was initiated against him on the same set of facts. The Respondent No.3, Director (FBI), Khadi & Village Industries Commission issued a charge-sheet vide memorandum dated 03.08.2010 against the Opposite Party No.1, who submitted his statement of defence on 05.10.2012. Enquiry was conducted and enquiry report dated 23.12.2013 was submitted. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer was asked by the Disciplinary Authority to re-submit a final clear cut report vide letter dated 12/13.03.2014 and in response to that, the Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 04.04.2014 informed that “the charges framed against the Opposite Party No.1 are not proved”. It is the case of the Opposite Party No.1 that the Disciplinary Authority accepted the enquiry report and it was forwarded to him Page 2 of 11 for his reply vide letter dated 03.12.2014 and accordingly, he submitted the reply on 01.01.2015. The Opposite Party No.1 was reinstated vide letter dated 22.02.2016 after revoking the order of suspension, but it was ordered that the period of suspension would be decided after considering the outcome of the Court cases filed against the Opposite Party No.1. While the matter stood thus, the Respondent No.2, Joint Chief Executive Officer vide Memorandum dated 24.04.2019, decided to initiate de novo enquiry against the Opposite Party No.1 which was the subject matter of challenge before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench Cuttack in O.A. No.424 of 2019. 3. The Petitioners of this Writ Petition filed the counter affidavits wherein it is stated specifically that the enquiry report was never accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, but one copy was sent to the applicant in view of the provisions contained under the Regulation 11(2) of KVIC (CCA) Regulations, 2003. The Petitioners’ case was further that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Opposite Party No.1 was never concluded and no final order either punishing him or exonerating him was issued and the then Disciplinary Authority i.e. Director (FBI) kept the Page 3 of 11 matter pending for final decision and he retired after attaining the age of superannuation. Then the enquiry report was placed before the Respondent No.2 to take a final decision, who after carefully perusing the report of the Inquiring Officer, found that the Inquiring Officer has not made detailed analysis of the statement given by the prosecution witnesses before coming to the conclusion that the charges are not proved and accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.04.2019 was passed initiating de novo enquiry against the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 filed his rejoinder, in which, inter alia, averred that the initiation of de novo inquiry after lapse of about ten years is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal took into account the factual scenario and also the ratio laid down in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh -Vrs.- N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 so also the ratio laid down in the case of P.V. Mahadeven -Vrs.- M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and came to hold as follows:- “10. Admittedly the applicant was served with charge memo on 03.08.2010 and the inquiry officer submitted his final report on 04.04.2014. The said report was Page 4 of 11
Legal Reasoning
We are of the view the inordinate delay in taking a decision for de novo enquiry has certainly caused serious prejudice to the Opp. Party No.1. He was placed under orders of suspension for more than six years whereafter it was revoked. He has suffered a lot of mental agony even after the Inquiring Officer held that the charges against him are not proved. There is no fault on his part in delaying the proceeding. The petitioners are responsible for the delay which has remained unexplained. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly quashed the order dated 24.04.2019 issued by the Respondent No.2. We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Judge (S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Apr-2025 10:22:17 AK Pradhan/ Bijay Page 11 of 11
Arguments
communicated to the applicant by the then disciplinary authority on 03.12.2015 and the applicant submitted his reply on 01.01.2015.The inquiry officer in his letter dated 28.03.2014/04.04.2014 had held "that the charge framed against the charged official Sri N. L. N. Reddy, Supp III (FBI) are not proved in accordance with the documentary and oral evidence adduced during inquiry, but the charged official had not followed the procedure properly in recommending to response the project proposal of Smt. Sanjukta Sahu from SBI Lakahnpur Branch to other SBl Belpahar Branch under PMEGP Scheme." The said inquiry report was forwarded to the applicant who submitted his reply on 01.01.2015 but it is not clear from the respondents side why no final order either punishing the applicant or exonerating him was passed by Disciplinary Authority till 2019, when de novo inquiry was ordered. No satisfactory reasons have been put forth by the respondents for this inordinate delay in completion of disciplinary proceeding. and prolonged without 11. The departmental enquiry puts an employee under great strain and stigma. It has serious repercussions on his family as well. Therefore, delinquent employee has a right that the disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously. He is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when the enquiry is unnecessarily satisfactory initiated explanation and without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. He is bound to be prejudiced in such an enquiry and constant strain and agony suffered by him cannot be compensated. Therefore, such an enquiry would in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the settled position in law is that the Departmental Enquiry should be initiated without delay and inordinate delay without proper explanation for the same furnishes ground for quashing the same. It is also settled that the Departmental Enquiry once initiated should be completed expeditiously and long delay in completing Page 5 of 11 the enquiry without proper justification can also be ground to quash the enquiry. xxx xxx xxx 14. The common thread running through catena of cases is where charge is serious and proveable by large number of documents and witnesses reasonable delay in completion of enquiry is excusable and time can be fixed to complete the same. While in cases of unexplained delay and charge is not serious, proceedings can be quashed. The Court can entertain the petition and quash the proceedings where there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating and completing the departmental enquiry. In the present case the inquiry was completed in the year 2015 after submission of reply by the applicant to the inquiry report. No reasonable and satisfactory reasons have been given by the respondents for the inordinate delay this Tribunal finds that the initiation of de novo inquiry against the applicant would cause prejudice to the applicant and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the impugned order dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure A/7) is quashed and set aside.” the enquiry. Therefore, in completing 5. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners as per the order dated 04.04.2025 placed the Date Chart before us. He also placed the citations which are being relied upon by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. In the case of P.V. Mahadeven (supra), it is held as follows:- “16. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher Government official under charges of Page 6 of 11 corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more the mistakes the punishment. For committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.” than In the case of N. Radhakishan (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. the essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is that Page 7 of 11 unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.” Mr. Purohit, learned counsel further placed reliance in the case of Government of A.P. -Vrs.- V. Appala Swamy reported in (2007) 14 SCC 49, wherein it is held as follows:- “12. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down therefor. Each case must be determined on its our facts. The principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are: (1) Where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee; (2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee. Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the Inquiry officer”. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel further submits that the Opp. Party no.1 is facing charges of corruption and he is having a disputed integrity and therefore, merely on the ground of delay in initiation of de novo inquiry, Page 8 of 11 the order dated 24.04.2019 should not have been quashed. 6. In the case in hand, as it appears that the criminal proceeding which was initiated against the Opposite Party No.1 is subjudice before the competent Court for trial. It appears that the Disciplinary Authority perused the enquiry report. When it was found that the Inquiring Officer, after examining four witnesses submitted the report with no clear-cut finding, he was asked to re- submit a clear cut report and accordingly, the Inquiring Officer submitted the report indicating therein that the charges against Opposite Party No.1 are not proved, which was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, for which reply was sought for and the Opposite Party No.1 seems to have submitted his reply/explanation/show cause on 01.01.2015. No decision was taken immediately thereafter, but the order of suspension was revoked in 2016 upon recommendation of Review Committee and on 24.04.2019, the decision has been taken by the Respondent No.2 for de novo enquiry. In the case of Prem Nath Bali -Vrs.- Reg., High Court of Delhi & Anr. reported in (2015) 16 SCC 415, it is held as follows:- Page 9 of 11 “26) Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee. 27) As a matter of experience, we often notice that after completion of the inquiry, the issue involved therein does not come to an end because if the findings of the inquiry proceedings have gone against the delinquent employee, he invariably pursues the issue in Court to ventilate his grievance, which again consumes time for its final conclusion. 28) Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.” On the basis of the factual scenario, it is apparent that there was no laches on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. The Disciplinary Authority kept the matter pending since 01.01.2015 after receipt of the reply from the Opp. Party No.1 and ultimately, after more than four Page 10 of 11 years, the order dated 24.04.2019 was passed for de novo enquiry.