29) One cannot dispute in this case that the
suspension period was unduly long. We also find that
the delay in completion of the departmental
proceedings was not wholly attributable to the
appellant but it was equally attributable to the
respondents as well. Due to such unreasonable delay,
the appellant naturally suffered a lot because he and
his family had to survive only on suspension
allowance for a long period of 9 years.
30) We are constrained to observe as to why the
departmental proceeding, which involved only one
charge and that too uncomplicated, have taken more
than 9 years to conclude the departmental inquiry. No
justification was forthcoming from the respondents’
side to explain the undue delay in completion of the
departmental inquiry except to throw blame on the
appellant's conduct which we feel, was not fully
justified.
31) 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.
32) 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.
33) 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.
34) Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, we
find that the respondent has fixed the appellant's
pension after excluding the period of suspension (9
years and 26 days). In other words, the respondents
while calculating the qualifying service of the appellant
for determining his pension did not take into account
the period of suspension from 06.02.1990 to
01.03.1999.
35) Having regard to the totality of the facts and the
circumstances, which are taken note of supra, we are
of the view that the period of suspension should have
been taken into account by the respondents for
determining the appellant's pension and we
accordingly do so.
36) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed in part only to the extent
indicated above in relation to fixation of appellant's
pension. The respondents are accordingly directed to
re-determine the appellant’s pension by taking into
account the period of suspension (06.02.1990 to
01.03.1999) and then pay to the appellant arrears of
the difference amount from the date he became eligible
to claim pension and then to continue to pay the
appellant re-determined pension regularly in future as
per Rules. It is to be done within three months from
the date of receipt of this order.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.958 OF 2010
Prem Nath Bali
V
Registrar, High Court of
Delhi & Anr.
Dated;December 16, 2015.
Citation:(2015) 16 SCC415
Print Page
suspension period was unduly long. We also find that
the delay in completion of the departmental
proceedings was not wholly attributable to the
appellant but it was equally attributable to the
respondents as well. Due to such unreasonable delay,
the appellant naturally suffered a lot because he and
his family had to survive only on suspension
allowance for a long period of 9 years.
30) We are constrained to observe as to why the
departmental proceeding, which involved only one
charge and that too uncomplicated, have taken more
than 9 years to conclude the departmental inquiry. No
justification was forthcoming from the respondents’
side to explain the undue delay in completion of the
departmental inquiry except to throw blame on the
appellant's conduct which we feel, was not fully
justified.
31) 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.
32) 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.
33) 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.
34) Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, we
find that the respondent has fixed the appellant's
pension after excluding the period of suspension (9
years and 26 days). In other words, the respondents
while calculating the qualifying service of the appellant
for determining his pension did not take into account
the period of suspension from 06.02.1990 to
01.03.1999.
35) Having regard to the totality of the facts and the
circumstances, which are taken note of supra, we are
of the view that the period of suspension should have
been taken into account by the respondents for
determining the appellant's pension and we
accordingly do so.
36) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed in part only to the extent
indicated above in relation to fixation of appellant's
pension. The respondents are accordingly directed to
re-determine the appellant’s pension by taking into
account the period of suspension (06.02.1990 to
01.03.1999) and then pay to the appellant arrears of
the difference amount from the date he became eligible
to claim pension and then to continue to pay the
appellant re-determined pension regularly in future as
per Rules. It is to be done within three months from
the date of receipt of this order.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.958 OF 2010
Prem Nath Bali
V
Registrar, High Court of
Delhi & Anr.
Dated;December 16, 2015.
Citation:(2015) 16 SCC415
