04 March, 2025 Union of India and others ……… v. Prem Shankar Saxena

as affirm ed by t he Appellat e Aut horit y, was set aside and it was held t hat respondent shall be deem ed t o be in service t ill t he dat e of his superannuat ion i.e.

31.07.2009 and he shall be ent it led t o all consequent ial benefit s.

2. I t is not in disput e t hat respondent was serving as a Wirem an in Cent ral Public Works Depart m ent ; a charge- sheet was issued t o him on

06.11.1991; respondent denied t he charges and request ed for a det ailed inquiry; an I nquiry Officer was 1 appoint ed vide let t er dat ed 03.01.1992, t he inquiry could not be com plet ed t ill 2001 due t o change of I nquiry Officers as well as Present ing Officers; respondent filed OA No.156 of 2001 challenging t he charge- sheet and quest ioning t he cont inuat ion of disciplinary proceedings.

3. Learned Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal vide order dat ed 09.02.2001 disposed of t he said original applicat ion by direct ing superint ending Engineer, CPWD, New Delhi t o conclude disciplinary proceedings wit hin four m ont hs. Operat ive port ion of t he order dat ed 09.02.2001 passed in OA No.156 of 2001 is reproduced below: - “ The O.A. is accordingly disposed of finally w it h t he direct ion t o t he respondent no.2, superint ending Engineer, Cent ral Public Works Depart m ent , New Delhi t o conclude t he disciplinary proceedings against t he applicant ( if already not concluded) wit hin a period of four m ont hs from t he dat e of copy of t his order is filed. The paym ent of arrears claim ed on revised pay scale/ shall abide by t he result of t he enquiry. There shall be no order as t o cost s.”

4. I t is revealed from t he record t hat t he I nquiry Officer com plet ed t he inquiry and subm it t ed report t o t he Disciplinary Aut horit y on 13.07.2001, in which charge nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were found t o be proved and charge no.4 and 7 were not found t o be proved. The inquiry report was supplied t o t he respondent and he gave represent at ion against t he inquiry report on 11.09.2001 and t he Disciplinary Aut horit y aft er considering represent at ion subm it t ed by respondent , passed t he punishm ent

08.11.2001.

5. Appellant challenged t he punishm ent order by filing an appeal, however, his appeal was dism issed 2 by t he appellat e aut horit y on 01.12.2010. The orders passed by t he Disciplinary Aut horit y and t he appellat e aut horit y were challenged by respondent before Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal in Original Applicat ion No.536 of 2011. Learned Tribunal allowed t he applicat ion filed by respondent challenging t he punishm ent order and t he appellat e order only on t he ground t hat t he t im eline fixed by t he Tribunal in it s order dat ed 09.02.2001 passed in OA No.156 of 2001 was breached, inasm uch as, t he disciplinary proceedings were required t o be concluded wit hin four m ont hs as per earlier order passed by learned Tribunal, however, t he punishm ent order was passed aft er expiry of four m ont hs. Relevant discussion as m ade in paragraph nos.11, 12 and 13 of t he im pugned j udgm ent dat ed 14.07.2014 is ext ract ed below: - concluded

06.11.1991 “ 11. The learned counsel for t he respondent s has cont ended t hat t he disciplinary proceedings were init iat ed 08.11.2001 ( not on 10.11.2001 as st at ed in reply) by im posing t he penalt y of com pulsory ret irem ent . I t has been subm it t ed t hat neit her copy of OA No. 156/ 01 was not supplied t o t he respondent s nor any chance t o subm it t he defence st at em ent was given t o t his t hem and an expart e hearing was held by t he t o Tribunal and a direct ion was respondent s t o com plet e t he disciplinary proceedings wit hin 04 m ont hs. The inquiry was com plet ed wit hin t he prescribed period by I nquiry Officer on 13.07.2001. I t has also been subm it t ed t hat t he Tribunal issued t he direct ion t o finalize t he inquiry proceedings wit hin 04 m ont hs period and not t he direct ed im posit ion of penalt y and, t herefore, t here was no delay in concluding t he disciplinary pr oceedings as direct ed by t his Tribunal. final act ion including issued t ake t he t he t o

12. The order dat ed 09.02.2001 passed in OA No. 156/ 01 reads as under: - direct ion “ The O.A. is accordingly disposed of finally w it h t he no.2, t he superint ending Engineer, Cent ral Public Works t he Depart m ent , New Delhi t o conclude respondent t o 3 disciplinary proceedings against t he applicant ( if already not concluded) wit hin a period of four m ont hs from t he dat e of copy of t his order is filed. The paym ent of arrears claim ed on revised pay scale/ shall abide by t he r esult of t he enquiry . There shall be no order as t o cost s."

13. There is no denial of t he fact t hat t he copy of said order was served on Respondent No. 3 on 15.03.2001. I t is an adm it t ed fact t hat im pugned order of punishm ent was passed on 08.11.2001. The order of t his Tribunal dat ed 09.02.2001 clearly provides t hat t he disciplinary proceedings should be concluded wit hin a period of 04 m ont hs and t here is no force in t he cont ent ion of respondent s t hat t he com pliance of Tribunal's order was com plet e by subm it t ing t he inquiry report on 13.07.2001. As t he disciplinary proceedings ends wit h t he issue of t he punishm ent order and not on dat e of subm ission of I nquiry Report , we are of t he view t hat t he im pugned punishm ent order was issued on 09.11.2001 i.e. aft er 7 m ont hs and 23 days, which is beyond t he t im e prescribed by t his Tribunal v ide order dat ed 09.02.2001 and no applicat ion for ext ension of t im e for com pliance of Tribunal's order was m oved, t he im pugned punishm ent order dat ed 08.11.2001 is beyond in view of j udgm ent s and orders referred above.” j urisdict ion and void abinit io

6. The reasoning given by learned Tribunal for set t ing aside t he order of punishm ent and also t he order passed by t he appellat e aut horit y does not appeal t o us. A punishm ent im posed upon a governm ent servant aft er due inquiry, as per applicable Discipline and Appeal Rules, cannot be set aside only on t he ground t hat t he t im e lim it for concluding disciplinary proceedings fixed by t he Tribunal in earlier round of lit igat ion was breached. The disciplinary aut horit y does not loose j urisdict ion t o im pose penalt y m erely because t he t im eline fixed by t he Tribunal, was breached.

7. Even ot herwise also, t here is no discussion in t he im pugned j udgm ent as t o whet her t he delay in passing t he final order of punishm ent was at t ribut able 4 t o t he depart m ent al aut horit ies or t o t he respondent him self, who was facing disciplinary inquiry.

8. The view t aken by learned Tribunal set t ing aside t he punishm ent order and also t he order passed by appellat e aut horit y, is unsust ainable for yet anot her reason. The order dat ed 09.02.2001, which t he deadline of four m ont hs for concluding disciplinary inquiry does not indicat e t he consequences which would follow, in case, t he deadline is breached by t he aut horit ies, t he aut horit y concerned m ay be hauled for cont em pt for cont em pt , however, a public servant found guilt y of m isconduct in full- fledged inquiry cannot be exonerat ed of all charges m erely because t here was som e delay in concluding t he disciplinary inquiry.

9. Many a t im es, Court s are faced wit h a quest ion as t o whet her a part icular provision in a St at ut e is m andat ory or direct ory. Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of Sh a r i f - u d - d i n Vs. A b d u l Ga n i Lo n e report ed as ( 1 9 8 0 ) 1 SCC 4 0 3 has held in paragraph no.9 t hat “ Whenever a st at ut e prescribes t hat a part icular act is t o be done in a part icular m anner and also lays down t hat failure t o com ply wit h t he said requirem ent leads t o a specific consequence, it would be difficult t o hold t hat t he requirem ent is not m andat ory and t he specified consequence should not follow.”

10. I n t he case of K a i l a sh Vs. N a n h k u a n d Ot h e r s report ed as ( 2 0 0 5 ) 4 SCC 4 8 0 t he Hon’ble Apex Court has referred t o ‘Principles of St at ut ory I nt erpret at ion’ aut hored by Just ice G.P. Singh. Paragraph no.34 of t he said j udgm ent is reproduced below: - 5 “ 34. Just ice G.P. Singh not es in his celebrat ed work Principles of St at ut ory I nt erpret at ion ( 9t h Edn., 2004) while dealing wit h m andat ory and direct ory provisions: “ The st udy of num erous cases on t his t opic does not lead t o form ulat ion of any universal rule except t his t hat language alone m ost oft en is not decisive, and regard m ust be had t o t he cont ext , subj ect- m at t er and obj ect of t he st at ut ory provision in quest ion, in det erm ining whet her t he sam e is m andat ory or direct ory. I n an oft- quot ed passage Lord Cam pbell said: 'No universal rule can be laid down as t o whet her m andat ory enact m ent s shall be considered direct ory only or obligat ory wit h an im plied nullificat ion for disobedience. I t is t he dut y of court s of j ust ice t o t ry t o get at t he real carefully int ent ion of at t ending t o t he whole scope of t he st at ut e t o be considered.’ ” ( p. 338) legislat ure by t he t he t he avoided; t hat “ ‘For ascert aining t he real int ent ion of t he legislat ure’, point s out Subbarao, J. 't he court m ay consider int er alia, t he nat ure and design of t he st at ut e, and t he consequences which would follow from const ruing it t he one way or t he ot her; im pact of ot her provisions whereby t he necessit y of com plying wit h t he t he quest ion provisions st at ut e circum st ances, nam ely, provides t he non- for a cont ingency of com pliance wit h t he provisions; t he fact t hat t he non- com pliance wit h t he provisions is or is not visit ed by som e penalt y; t he serious or t he t rivial consequences, t hat flow t herefrom ; and above all, whet her t he obj ect of t he legislat ion will be defeat ed or furt hered'. I f obj ect of t he enact m ent w ill be defeat ed by holding t he sam e direct ory, it will be const rued as m andat ory, w hereas if by holding it m andat ory serious general inconvenience will be creat ed t o innocent persons wit hout very m uch furt hering t he obj ect of enact m ent , t he sam e will be const rued as direct ory.” ( pp. 339- 40) ”

11. The order passed in OA No.156 of 2001 whereby four m ont hs were given t o t he Disciplinary Aut horit y t o conclude disciplinary proceedings ext ract ed in paragraph no.3. There is not hing in t he said order t o indicat e t hat if t he t im eline of four m ont hs fixed by learned Tribunal is breached and disciplinary proceedings are not concluded wit hin given t im e, t hen 6 t he disciplinary proceedings shall st and abat ed or t he punishm ent order, if passed, would be of no consequence.

12. I n t he absence of any indicat ion about t he consequences which would follow on account of breach t he t im eline fixed by t he Tribunal, t he non- com pliance of t he order dat ed 09.02.2001 passed in OA No.156 of 2001 m ay give rise t o a cause of act ion for filing a cont em pt pet it ion, however, a punishm ent order validly passed by t he Disciplinary Aut horit y, as per rules, cannot be set aside on t he ground t hat t he punishm ent order was passed aft er expiry of t im eline fixed by t he Tribunal.

13. For t he aforesaid reasons, t he im pugned j udgem ent and order dat ed 14.07.2014 passed by learned Tribunal in Original Applicat ion No.536 of 2011 deserves t o be set aside and t he sam e is hereby set aside. The Original Applicat ion No.536 of 2011 shall st and rest ored t o t he file of Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad and learned Tribunal shall decide t he Original Applicat ion afresh on m erit s.

14. This Court hopes and expect s t hat t he Original Applicat ion would be decided wit hin six m ont hs from t he dat e of product ion of a cert ified copy of t his j udgm ent . ( Vi v e k Bh a r t i Sh a r m a , J.) ( M a n o j K . Ti w a r i , J.) 0 4 .0 3 .2 0 2 5 Sukhbant SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a63 80d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C 42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH 7