Justice delayed, but not denied: Punjab and Haryana High Court overturns 26-year-old dismissal order

Nearly 26 years after a sub-divisional officer was dismissed from service, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the order after asserting that the absence from inquiry proceedings cannot be construed as “proof” against him. Taking up the petition file in 1999, Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu also ruled that the inquiry officer’s approach was lopsided and legally untenable.

The wait may sound atypical, but is not exceptional. The high court currently has no less than 4,33,253 cases pending, including 1,61,362 criminal matters involving life and liberty. No less than 1,12,754 or 26 per cent of the total cases are pending for more than 10 years. The situation is unlikely to improve in the coming months following a shortage of 31 judges. The high court currently has 54 judges as against the sanctioned strength of 85.

The case before the bench dates back to 1992. The petitioner was posted at Mukerian Hydel Project, when theft of materials valued at Rs 1,52,030 from a store was reported. Investigation ensued which resulted in closure of the case. As a result, action was not taken against any of the officials. But a chargesheet containing allegations of embezzlement of material was later served on the petitioner.

Justice Sindhu noted that the competent authority was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner in reply to the charge sheet, following which the Director, Hydel Designs Organisation, was appointed as an inquiry officer in the matter. The inquiry officer submitted his report “proving the charges levelled against petitioner” following which the officer prayed for fresh inquiry in his presence.

His request was accepted and the matter was remitted to the inquiry officer for a fresh report after associating the petitioner. But the inquiry officer insisted on taking action on the basis of his earlier inquiry report. The petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing by the punishing authority, but it was not convinced, resulting in the passing of the impugned order of dismissal from service.

The state’s stand in the matter was that the officer had embezzled material and was “rightly held guilty” before being inflicted punishment of dismissal from service. Justice Sindhu’s bench was also told that a number of notices were sent to the officer. But he chose not to join the inquiry proceedings. As such, the inquiry officer had no option, except to proceed in the absence of petitioner.

Justice Sindhu asserted: “No evidence worth the name was led during the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry officer equated the ‘absence of petitioner’ with ‘proof’. This court is of the opinion that the approach of the inquiry officer is lopsided and indefensible in law”.

Before parting with the case, Justice Sindhu set aside the impugned inquiry report dated May 13, 1997, and punishment order dated December 11, 1998. The matter was remitted back to conduct a fresh inquiry in the matter on the basis of charge sheet dated September 8, 1995, before taking a final decision, expeditiously.