GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS. versus V. APPALASWAMY

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 19 · Decided: 25-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
V. APPALA SWAMY 
JANUARY 25, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Departmental proceedings-Delay in concluding proceedings-Effect 
of-Held, Entire proceedings may become vitiated and would be liable to C 
be quashed without considering the other factors-Delay and !aches. 
Respondent was working as a Principal in various colleges. In 1990, 
several charges of misconduct were framed against him. Departmental D 
proceedings were initiated. In 1992, Inquiry Officer submitted his report. 
However before any action could be taken, the respondent retired. A 
proceeding was initiated against the respondent upon service of notice to show 
cause as to why 50% of the provisional pension fixed in his favour or part 
thereof should not be withheld. During the pend ency of the said departmental 
proceeding, an original application was filed by him before the Administrative E 
Tribunal 
The Tribunal directed the State to conclude the departmental 
proceedings within a period of three months. The said order came to be 
questioned by the respondent before the High Court. In the meantime, a 
recovery proceeding was also initiated against him. The correctness of the F 
said recovery proceeding was also questioned by the respondent before the 
High Court. High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Government 
to release full pension to the respondent only on the ground of delay in 
concluding the departmental proceedings. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It may be true that there was some delay on the part of the 
appellants to conclude the departmental proceedings. The Tribunal did not 
accept the contention raised on behalf of the respondent that only by reason 
19 
G 
H 
)-
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 2 S. C.R. 
A thereof the entire departmental proceedings ~ecame vitiated. The High Court 
thus, was required to consider the question as to whether, in the facts and 
circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the nature of the charges 
levelled against the respondent as also the explanation offered by the 
appellants in this behalf, it was a case where the entire proceedings should 
B 
have been quashed. The High Court in its impugned judgment did not address 
itself the said question. It, from the very beginning proceeded on the premise 
that the pension was payable to the respondent on his retirement. The High 
Court furthermore did not determine the question as to whether a proceeding 
could have been initiated against the respondent in terms of Rule 9 of the 
Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963. If it is held that the second 
c proceeding was maintainable in terms of the extent rules, ordinarily, the 
Tribunal or the High Court should not have interfered therewith. !Para 111 
123-F-H; 24-AI 
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Braham Dutta Sharma & Anr., (19871 2 SCC 
179 and State of UP. & Ors. v. Harihar Bhola Nath, (2006) 11 SCALE 322, 
D relied on. 
2. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental 
proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, no hard and fast 
rule can be laid down therefor. Each case must be determined on its own 
E 
facts. The proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay 
where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of 
the employee; and 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. The High Court did not consider any of the aforementioned aspects. 
(Paras 12,16) (24-8-D, HJ 
F 
Secretary to the Govt. Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. I. Srinivasan, 
y· 
(1996) 3 SCC 157; P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Ors., (2006) 5 
SCALE 54 and Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Faridabad v. 
Sachindra Nath Pandey & Ors., (199513 SCC 134, relied on. 
G 
M V. Bijlani v. Union of India & Ors., 120061 5 SCC 88, distinguished. 
3. The appellants are directed to conclude the departmental proceeding 
at an early date but not later than six months from the date of communication 
1-
of this order. However, till a final decision is taken in the matter by the State, 
the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed. !Para 17, 181 (25-A-B) 
H 
-- '-/ 
) 
- J. 
GOVERNMENT OF AP. v. V. APP ALA SWAMY (S.B. SINHA, J.] 
21 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 393 of2007. 
From the Final Common Judgment and Order da

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.