2024 (8) TMI 1528 - SC - Indian Laws

SC quashes disciplinary penalty for desertion after wife withdraws complaint citing mistaken filing

Mool Chandra Versus Union of India & Anr.

SC allowed appeal in disciplinary proceedings case where appellant faced penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for allegedly ... Condonation of delay of 425 days in filing the Original Application - imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect - HELD THAT:- It is an undisputed fact that appellant was issued with the article of charge alleging that he had deserted his wife and two school going children and was residing along with another lady. The said disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated on account of a complaint lodged by the wife of the appellant. When the Inquiry Officer commenced the inquiry, she filed an affidavit stating thereunder that she had filed the complaint under mistaken notion and she withdrew the complaint. In fact, in the articles of charge issued to the appellant she was cited as a witness by the respective authority and neither she appeared before the Inquiry Officer nor she had deposed in the inquiry proceedings. Though, she had already filed an affidavit withdrawing her complaint against the appellant, yet the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry and submitted the report, holding appellant guilty of the charge of deserting his wife and children and exonerating him of charge of residing with another lady. If negligence can be attributed to the appellant, then necessarily the delay which has not been condoned by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court deserves to be accepted. However, if no fault can be laid at the doors of the appellant and cause shown is sufficient then both the Tribunal and the High Court were in error in not adopting a liberal approach or justice oriented approach to condone the delay. Conclusion - i) The delay in filing application was sufficiently explained, and the failure to condone it was an error. ii) The penalty imposed on the appellant was unjustified due to the lack of evidence and the withdrawal of the complaint. Matter remanded back to the Tribunal or High Court or to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the matter - appeal allowed by way of remand. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include: Whether the Tribunal and the High Court erred in not condoning the delay of 425 days in filing the Original Application (O.A.) No. 2066 of 2020. Whether the penalty imposed on the appellant was justified and proportionate to the alleged misconduct. Whether the withdrawal of the earlier O.A. without the appellant's consent constituted a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the subsequent O.A. Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the subsequent disciplinary actions were sustainable given the withdrawal of the complaint by the appellant's wife.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISDelay in Filing O.A. No. 2066 of 2020 Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referenced precedents such as Rafiq and Another Vs. Munshilal and Another and N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, which emphasize that 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the Tribunal and High Court failed to adopt a justice-oriented approach. The delay was not due to negligence on the appellant's part but rather due to the counsel's unauthorized withdrawal of the earlier O.A. Key evidence and findings: The order of withdrawal did not reflect any memo signed by the appellant, indicating that the withdrawal was not authorized. Application of law to facts: The Court concluded that the delay was sufficiently explained and should have been condoned. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's argument that the O.A. was withdrawn unconditionally was not supported by evidence of appellant's consent. Conclusions: The delay should have been condoned, allowing the appellant to pursue his remedy.Justification and Proportionality of Penalty Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Tribunal's power to review penalties if they are disproportionate was considered, referencing the principle that judicial review can interfere if a penalty is totally disproportionate. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The penalty of dismissal was previously deemed disproportionate, and the subsequent minor penalty was imposed after remand. Key evidence and findings: The appellant's wife withdrew her complaint, and she did not testify, undermining the basis for the penalty. Application of law to facts: The Court noted the lack of evidence to support the charge and the withdrawal of the complaint, rendering the penalty unjustified. Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's defense of the penalty was undermined by the lack of evidence and the withdrawal of the complaint. Conclusions: The penalty was not justified, and the findings of the Inquiry Officer were unsustainable.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The real test for sound exercise of discretion by the High Court in this regard is not the physical running of time as such but the test is whether by reason of delay, there is such negligence on the part of the petitioner so as to infer that he has given up his claim...'Core principles established: The principle that 'sufficient cause' should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice was reinforced. The Court emphasized that penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct and supported by evidence.Final determinations on each issue: The delay in filing O.A. No. 2066 of 2020 was sufficiently explained, and the failure to condone it was an error. The penalty imposed on the appellant was unjustified due to the lack of evidence and the withdrawal of the complaint. The orders of the Tribunal and the High Court were set aside, and the appellant was entitled to consequential benefits.