STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus CHAMAN LAL GOYAL

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 695 · Decided: 31-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-•+ 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
CHAMAN LAL GOYAL 
JANUARY 31, 1995 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND MS. SUJATA V. MAHOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service La~DisciplinaTy Proceedings-Delay of five and a half years 
in serving memo of charges-Very grave charges-Enquiry proceeded to a large 
extent-fVhether delay wammted quashing of charges-Held, No-Enquiry 
which had proceeded to a large extent allowed to be completed-Direction c 
made to consider respondent for promotion pending enquiry. 
The respondent was Superintendent of a High Security Jail in the 
year 1986. He was transferred from the said post on 26-12- 86. On the night 
intervening 1st/2nd January, 1987, certain inmates, said to be terrorists, 
made an attempt to escape. In that connection, two of the inmates attempt-
D 
ing to escape and one jail official died in the shooting. Six terrorists made 
good their escape. The Inspector General of Prisons immediately inspected 
the prison and reported that the said incident was the cumulative result 
of lax administration, indiscipline and lack of control over the prisoners. 
He reported further that the respondent followed the policy of appease-
ment towards the extremists. He recommended that the respondent, who 
was responsible for the loose administration and laxity in the control of 
the inmates should be placed under suspension. The District Magistrate 
also ordered the Sub-divisional Magistrate to enquire into the said inci-
dent who submitted his report on 26.1.1987. In that report, there were no 
observations or comments either for or against the respondent. 
No action was taken against the respondent until 1992. The memo 
E 
F 
of charges was issued against him on 9.7.1992. An enquiry officer was 
appointed on 20.7.1993. The respondent filed a writ petition seeking the 
quashing of the charges and the orders appointing the enquiry officer. - G 
Though the petition was admitted, the enquiry was not stayed. The enquiry 
commenced in September, 1993 and proceeded apace. 
The High Court while allowing the writ petition quashed the memo 
of charges on the ground of the delay of five and a half years in serving 
the memo of charges. It was also held that the Sub divisional Magistrate H 
695 
~-
' 
,._ 
\ ' 
. 
696• 
\ ' 
· SUPREMECOURTREPORTS 
(1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
had exonerated the respondent or any r~·sponsihility for or culpability in 
the said incident in his report: The court stated that the delayed actionof . 
the go\·emment in· proceeding against the respondent only when ·the 
respondent's case was to come op for promotion, was vitiated by malafides. 
It was further held that the respondent being not the Superintendent of . 
• 
B the jail 'at the time the incident took place and other officials reported to 
he responsible alongwith ~the respondent having-been exonerated, the 
enquiry could not proc.;.d only ~gainst the. respondent. The correctness of 
the said order ofthe High Court was questioned in this appeal. 
c 
Alloh\ing the appeal, this Court 
. . 
. 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was factually in error in holding or 
proceeding on the assumption that the report of the Sub-divisional 
Magistrate had exonerated the respondent of any responsibility or cnl· 
pability. The report neither exonerated the -respondent nor it held him / 
' 
·responsible or guilty. There was the earlier report of the Inspector Genei;al 
D of Prisons which held the respondent responsible for the said incident 
- along with other prison officials. He had recommended -the suspension of 
the respondent. In this state of affairs, it was not correct to assume that 
the Government had dropped the idea of proceeding against the respon-
. dent and that it changed its mind later. It is one thing te> say that the 
~ , 
. 
I 
. 
, 
E Government was guilty of inaction and an altogether different thing to say 
that it had dropped.the matter in.view of the Suh-divisional Magistrate's 
report but then revised its opinion later, for reasons which were suggested 
to be not fair: The charge ofmalafides was also made in vague manner, in 
the absence or any clear allegation against any particular official:. 
F 
1.2. Disciplinary proceeding must ·be conducted soon after the ir· · · 
-{ 
regularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities •. -
They ca~ot be iniruited after lapse or. considerable time. It w~uld not be 
. fair to the. delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving 
the charges difficult and is thus not also in the int

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