Delay In Conducting Disciplinary Enquiry Does Not Ipso Facto Vitiate It

Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs Akhilesh Jha

Coram: Justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, and Hima Kohli

Case No: CA 5153 of 2021

Court Observation: “It 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.”

“This, in our view, 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”

[doc id=9025]

Previous Posts

Fraudulent Practice To Gain Public Employment Cannot Be Countenanced: Supreme Court Upholds Termination Of 38 Workmen By BCCL

Medical Professionals Cannot Be Held Negligent Merely Because The Treatment Is Not Successful Or Patient Dies During Surgery: Supreme Court

Rule Or Law Cannot Be Construed As Retrospective Unless It Expresses A Clear Or Manifest Intention To The Contrary: Supreme Court

Employee Not Estopped From Challenging Terms & Conditions Of Employment If It Violates Statutory Requirement: Supreme Court

Repeat Of OBC Reservation In Mayor Post Before SC Reservation Not Violation Of Rotation Policy As Per Maharashtra Act: Supreme Court

Suit Simpliciter For Injunction Without Claiming Declaration Of Title Not Maintainable If Plaintiff’s Title Is Disputed: Supreme Court Download Judgement