PREM NATH BALI versus REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI &AL\JR.

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 1145 · Decided: 16-12-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1145 
PREM NATH BALI 
v. 
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI &Al'\JR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015. 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR 
SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service law: Disciplinary proceedings -Appellant put C 
on suspension - Disciplinary proceedings continued for more 
than 9 years - Order of compulsory retirement - Plea of 
appellant that he did not get fair opportunity to meet the 
charges and therefore disciplinary proceedings were bad in 
law having been conducted in violation of principle of natural D 
justice - Held: Evidence showed that appellant was given 
full opportunity to adduce evidence - There was no violation 
of rules of natural justice - Interference with order of 
compulsory retirement not called for. 
E 
Administrative law: Judicial review - Compulsory 
retirement -
Scope of interference with the order of 
punishment inflicted by appointing authority- Held: Courts 
are generally slow to interfere i,yith the quantum of punishment 
and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the F 
punishment - In the instant case, appellant was not able to 
show any ground to call for interference with the punishment. 
Delay/laches: Appellant put on suspension -
Disciplinary proceedings continued for more than 9 years -
G 
Exclusion of this period while calculating appellant's pension 
-Justification of- Held: Suspension period was unduly long 
- Delay in completion of departmental proceedings was not 
wholly attributable to the appellant but it was equally 
H 
1145 
1146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
attributable to the respondents as well - 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 - No 
justification from the respondents' side to explain undue delay 
B in completion of the departmental inquiry- In the facts and 
circumstances, period of suspension should be taken into 
account by the respondents for determining the appellant's · 
pension - Accordingly, authorities directed to re-determine 
the pension. 
c 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the appellant was 
served with detailed charge sheet along with the 
o documents referred to therein. He filed reply to the charge 
sheet. The parties were then given full opportunity to 
adduce evidence and which they availed of by examining 
witnesses tn their support and by cross-examining each 
of them. The writ court examined this issue in detail and 
E rightly recorded the finding that the inquiry officer 
observed the principle of natural justice in the 
departmental proceedings and found no fault in the 
proceedings so as to entitle the court to interfere in writ 
F 
jurisdiction. [Para 21] [1153-D-F] 
2. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges 
leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then 
it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what 
punishment should be imposed on the delinquent 
G employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority, 
keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, 
findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of 
the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating 
to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then 
H imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules. Once 
PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF 
1147 
DELHI &ANR. 
such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority A 
in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then 
the Courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of 
punishment and only in rare and appropriate case 
substitutes the punishment. Such power is exercised 
when the Court finds that the delinquent employee is B 
able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is 
wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to 
the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the 
conscious of the Court or when it is found to be in 
contravention of the Rules. The Court may, in such C 
cases, remit the case to the appointing authority for 
imposing any other punishment as against what was 
originally awarded to the delinquent employee by the 
appointing authority as per the Rules or may substitute 0 
the punishment by itself instead of remitting to the 
appointing authority. 
The appellant was not able to 
show any grounds so as to entitle Court to interfere in. 
the quantum of punishment. [Para 24 to 27]

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