2015 (12) TMI 1720 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court affirms compulsory retirement order, emphasizes appointing authority's discretion in punishment determination. Fair departmental inquiry upheld. Recalculation of pension ordered.

Prem Nath Bali Versus Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.

The Supreme Court upheld the order of compulsory retirement imposed by the District & Sessions Judge after a departmental enquiry, emphasizing the ... Computation of pension - taking into account the period of suspension - qualifying service of the appellant for determining the pension - Held that:- 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. 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. 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. 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. Issues:Appeal against final judgment of High Court | Disciplinary proceedings and imposition of compulsory retirement | Calculation of suspension period for pension determinationAnalysis:1) Disciplinary Proceedings and Imposition of Compulsory Retirement:The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order of compulsory retirement imposed by the District & Sessions Judge after a departmental enquiry. The appellant's counsel argued that the punishment was not justified and disproportionate to the charges. However, the Supreme Court upheld the punishment, stating that the appointing authority has discretion to decide the punishment based on the gravity of charges, inquiry findings, and service record. The Court emphasized that interference in the quantum of punishment is rare and only warranted in extreme cases of unreasonableness or contravention of rules. The appellant failed to demonstrate grounds for interference, leading to the dismissal of this argument.2) Fairness of Departmental Inquiry:The appellant's counsel contended that the departmental inquiry proceedings were unfair, denying the appellant a proper opportunity to defend against the charges. However, the Court found that the inquiry officer followed principles of natural justice by serving a detailed charge sheet, allowing replies, and providing opportunities for evidence and cross-examination. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the inquiry proceedings were conducted fairly, and there was no basis for interference in writ jurisdiction.3) Calculation of Suspension Period for Pension Determination:The appellant raised concerns about the exclusion of the suspension period (9 years and 26 days) from the calculation of his pension. The Court acknowledged the undue delay in completing the departmental proceedings, attributing it to both the appellant and the respondents. Emphasizing the importance of timely conclusion of inquiries, the Court directed that every employer should aim to conclude departmental proceedings within a reasonable timeframe, ideally within six months. In this case, the Court ordered the re-calculation of the appellant's pension, including the suspension period, and instructed the respondents to pay the appellant the arrears and continue with the revised pension payments promptly.This comprehensive analysis of the Supreme Court judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Court's decisions on each aspect of the case.