Delay In Conducting Disciplinary Enquiry Does Not Ipso Facto Vitiate It
Case: State of Madhya Pradesh vs Akhilesh Jha
Coram: Justices DY 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=9343]
Previous Posts
Second Appeal- High Courts Can Exercise Limited Factual Review Under Section 103 CPC: Supreme Court
Government Should Keep Taxation System Convenient & Simple, Says Supreme Court
Delay In Conducting Disciplinary Enquiry Does Not Ipso Facto Vitiate It: Supreme Court
Employee Not Estopped From Challenging Terms & Conditions Of Employment If It Violates Statutory Requirement: Supreme Court Download Judgement
