STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR versus AKHILESH JHA & ANR

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 146 · Decided: 06-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR
v.
AKHILESH JHA & ANR
(Civil Appeal No. 5153 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD,
VIKRAM NATH AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Service Law – Departmental enquiry – First respondent-
Superintendent of Police allegedly violated administrative orders
of the Inspector General of Police for disbanding “Gunda Squad”
constituted, operated and supervised by the first respondent, and
a person interrogated by the Squad died in custody – Magisterial
enquiry was conducted and the report submitted contained
observations against the first respondent – Departmental enquiry
subsequently convened against the first respondent and charge
sheet was issued – Tribunal quashed the charge-sheet on grounds
that there was a delay of nearly two years in concluding the
disciplinary enquiry; and that the charges were ambiguous –
Affirmation of the order, by High Court – Held: Not justified –
Charges against the first respondent were neither vague nor
ambiguous – The charge-sheet, together with the statement of
imputations, contains detailed elaboration of the allegations
against the first respondent – Tribunal quashed the charge-sheet
purportedly on the basis that prejudice had been caused to the
first respondent by denial of opportunity for deputation or for
promotion as a result of the pendency of the proceedings – This
line of reasoning which weighed with the Tribunal is plainly
erroneous – Every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does
not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated – Whether
prejudice is caused to the officer who is being enquired into is a
matter which has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances
of each case – Prejudice must be demonstrated to have been
caused and cannot be a matter of surmise – Chargesheet was
issued to the first respondent while he was in service, and hence
the disciplinary enquiry can proceed to its logical conclusion –
Disciplinary enquiry directed to be concluded expeditiously.
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 146
146
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
147
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. On the basis of the material placed on the record,
it was impossible to come to the conclusion that the charge
against the first respondent is vague or ambiguous. The
charge-sheet, together with the statement of imputations,
contains a detailed elaboration of the allegations against the first
respondent and does not leave the recipient in a measure of
doubt or ambiguity over the nature of the case he is required
to answer in the disciplinary enquiry. The finding that the charge
is vague is palpably in error. The Tribunal declined to quash the
charge-sheet by its initial order dated 28 July 2016. However,
by a subsequent order dated 5 January 2018, it proceeded to
do exactly what it had declined to do by its previous order. The
Tribunal purportedly did so on the basis that prejudice had been
caused to the first respondent by the denial of an opportunity
for deputation or for promotion as a result of the pendency of
the proceedings. The line of reasoning which weighed with the
Tribunal is plainly erroneous. The Tribunal would have been
justified in directing the expeditious conclusion of the enquiry,
but instead, it proceeded to quash the enquiry in its entirety.
This was clearly impermissible. Every delay in conducting a
disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being
vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is being
enquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis
of the circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be
demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of
surmise. Apart from submitting that the first respondent was
unable to proceed on deputation or to seek promotion, there is
no basis on which it could be concluded that his right to defend
himself stands prejudicially affected by a delay of two years in
concluding the enquiry. The High Court, therefore, has clearly
failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by simply
affirming the judgment of the Tribunal. The judgment of the
Tribunal suffered from basic errors which go to the root of the
matter and which have been ignored both by the Tribunal as well
as by the High Court. [Para 13][152-C-H; 153-A]
2. The chargesheet was issued to the first respondent
while he was in service, and hence the disciplinary enquiry can
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. AKHILESH JHA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
148
SUPREME COURT REPORT

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