PREM NATH BALIversusREGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI &AL\JR.

                    [2015] 10 S.C.R. 1145


                      PREM NATH BALI                             A
                              v.
       REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI &Al'\JR.
                (Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010)
                                                                 B
                   DECEMBER 16, 2015.
       [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR
                        SAPRE, JJ.]

       Service law: Disciplinary proceedings -Appellant put C
 on suspension - Disciplinary proceedings continued for more
 than 9 years - Order of compulsory retirement - Plea of
 appellant that he did not get fair opportunity to meet the
 charges and therefore disciplinary proceedings were bad in
 law having been conducted in violation of principle of natural D
justice - Held: Evidence showed that appellant was given
 full opportunity to adduce evidence - There was no violation
of rules of natural justice - Interference with order of
 compulsory retirement not called for.
                                                                  E
       Administrative law: Judicial review - Compulsory
 retirement - Scope of interference with the order of
punishment inflicted by appointing authority- Held: Courts
 are generally slow to interfere i,yith the quantum of punishment
 and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the F
punishment - In the instant case, appellant was not able to
show any ground to call for interference with the punishment.

    Delay/laches: Appellant put on suspension -
Disciplinary proceedings continued for more than 9 years - G
Exclusion of this period while calculating appellant's pension
-Justification of- Held: Suspension period was unduly long
- Delay in completion of departmental proceedings was not
wholly attributable to the appellant but it was equally
                                                                 H
                             1145
1146       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (2015] 10 S.C.R.

 A  attributable to the respondents as well - It is the duty of the
   employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated
    against the delinquent employee is concluded within the
   shortest possible time by taking priority measures - No
   justification from the respondents' side to explain undue delay
 B in completion of the departmental inquiry- In the facts and
   circumstances, period of suspension should be taken into
    account by the respondents for determining the appellant's ·
   pension - Accordingly, authorities directed to re-determine
    the pension.
 c
           Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the appellant was
   served with detailed charge sheet along with the
 o documents referred to therein. He filed reply to the charge
   sheet. The parties were then given full opportunity to
   adduce evidence and which they availed of by examining
   witnesses tn their support and by cross-examining each
   of them. The writ court examined this issue in detail and
 E rightly recorded the finding that the inquiry officer
   observed the principle of natural justice in the
   departmental proceedings and found no fault in the
   proceedings so as to entitle the court to interfere in writ
   jurisdiction. [Para 21] [1153-D-F]
 F
        2. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges
   leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then
   it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what
   punishment should be imposed on the delinquent
 G employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority,
   keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges,
   findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of
   the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating
   to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then
 H imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules. Once
   PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF                  1147
                  DELHI &ANR.

such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority       A
in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then
the Courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of
punishment and only in rare and appropriate case
substitutes the punishment. Such power is exercised
when the Court finds that the delinquent employee is           B
able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is
wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to
the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the
conscious of the Court or when it is found to be in
contravention of the Rules. The Court may, in such             C
cases, remit the case to the appointing authority for
imposing any other punishment as against what was
originally awarded to the delinquent employee by the
appointing authority as per the Rules or may substitute
                                                               0
the punishment by itself instead of remitting to the
appointing authority. The appellant was not able to
show any grounds so as to entitle Court to interfere in.
the quantum of punishment. [Para 24 to 27] [1154-A-G]

     3. One cannot dispute in this case that the               E
suspension period was unduly long. T_he delay in
completion of the departmental proceedings was not
wholly attributable to the appellant but it was equally
attributable to the respondents as well. Due to such           F
unreasonable delay, the appellant naturally suffered a
lot because he and his family had to survive only on
suspension allowance for a long period of 9 years. The
departmental proceeding, which involved only one
charge and that too uncomplicated, have taken more             G
than 9 years to conclude the departmental inquiry. No
justification was forthcoming from the respondents' side
to explain the undue delay in completion of the
departmental inquiry except to throw blame on the
appellant's conduct which was not fully justified. It is the   H
1148      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 10 S.C.R.

 A   duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental
     inquiry initiated against the delinquent. employee is
     concluded within the shortest possible time by taking
     priority measures. In cases where the delinquent is
     placed under suspension during the pendency of such
 B inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the
     employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the
     shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss
     and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee ..
     After completion of the inquiry, the issue involved therein
 C does not come to an end because if the findings of the
     inquiry proceedings have gone against the delinquent
     employee, he invariably pursues the issue in Court to
     ventilate his grievance, which again consumes time for
     its final conclusion. Keeping these factors in mind, every
 0
   ..employer (whether State or private) must make sincere
     endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry
     proceedings once initiated against the delinquent
     employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to
 E such proceedings and as far as possible it should be
     concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it
     is not possible for the employer to conclude due to
     certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings
     within the time frame then efforts should be made to
 F conclude within reasonably extended period depending
     upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more
     than a year. [Paras 29 to 33) [1155-B-H; 1156-A-D]

        4. The respondent fixed the appellant's pension after
 G ·excluding the period of suspension (9 years and 26
    days). In other words, the respondents while calculating
    the qualifying service of the appellant for determining
    his pension did not take into account the period of
    suspension from 06.02.1990 to 01.03.1999. Having
 H regard to the totality of the facts and the circumstances,
    PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF                     1149
                    DELHI &ANR.

the period of suspension should have been taken into A
account by the respondents for determining the
appellant's pension. [Paras 34, 35) [1156-E-G]

    CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 958
of2010                                                             B

    From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2008 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition.(C) No. 2046
of2001

    Sreegesh, V. S. Lakshmi, Balraj Dewan for the Appellant.       C

   Wasim A Qadri, Rekha Pandey, Zaid Ali, T. Qadri, D. S.
Mahra, Anil Katiyar for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                     D
     ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1, This appeal is filed
against the final judgment and order dated 21.08.2008 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition(c) No. 2046
of 2001 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed        E
by the appellant herein.

    2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal,
which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the
relevant facts in brief infra.
                                                                   F
    3. On 01.10.1965, the appellant joined the office of District
& Sessions Court, Delhi as Lower Division Clerk. He was
confirmed w.e.f. 06.07.1976. Thereafter on 26.07.1986, he
was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.). In May, 1989,
he was post~d as U.D.C. as in-charge o( copying agency G
criminal si.de at Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

    4. While working as U.D.C. and in-charge of Copying
 Agency (Criminal) at Patiala House Court, on 23.01.1990, the
.appellant submitted a written complaint against one Window        H
1150         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 10 S.C.R.


 A     Clerk, namely, Smt. Brij Bala, to the officer in-charge of the
       Copying Agency, Patiala House Courts stating therein that she
       is not discharging her duty effectively and she often used to
       close the counter of the Copying Agency before the prescribed
       time and after lunch also she used to resume her duty after the
 B     prescribed time. Therefore, the litigants had occasion to make
       a complaint to the appellant and he had to depute other official.
       to attend the work. The appellant requested for her transfer.

            5. On the same day, Smt. Brij Bala also made a statement
 C     to the superior officer that on 22.01.1990 after closing the
       application register at 1.00 p.m., she came to know that some
       applications, which were not even entered in the register on
       that day, were entered in CD2/Dak register subsequently and
       the certified copies were got prepared of those applications
 D     on the same date. She was also pressurized to deliver the
       copies on the same date at 2.30 p.m. When she refused to
       deliver the copy, the appellant quarreled with her and used
       unwanted words in the office, which were uncalled for.

 E         6. The office-in-charge forwarded the aforesaid statement
       of Smt. Brij Bala to the District Judge. On the basis of said
       complaint, a preliminary enquiry was made. Thereafter a
       departmental enquiry was also held against the appellant. On
       06.02.1990, the appellant was placed under suspension.
 F
         7. A memorandum dated 18.07.1990 was served on the
   appellant by the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi
   that the authority proposes to hold an enquiry against him under
   Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control
 G and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short "the CCS Rules") which
   included the statement of articles of charges and other relevant
   documents.

           8. The disciplinary proceedings, which commenced on
 H     18.07 .1990, continued for more than nine years. Pending
                                                                   .

   PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF                     1151
     DELHI &ANR. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

disciplinary proceedings, the appellant sought revocation of A
suspension order but such representation made by the
appellant was not considered. Subsequently, vide order dated
01.03.1999, the then District & Sessions Judge, exercising
the powers conferred under Clause C of sub-rule 5 of Rule 10
of CCS Rules revoked the order of suspension with immediate B
effect. The issue, whether the period of suspension is to be
reckoned as period on duty, was not decided and directed to
be taken up after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

   . 9. The District & Sessions Judge, Delhi passed two orders    C
dated 27.10.1999 and 28.10.1999 imposing a major penalty
of compulsory retirement on the appellant. It was also ordered
that the appellant will not be entitled to any amount more than
the allowances already paid during the period of suspension.
                                                                  D
    10. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed an
appeal before the Administrative Judge of the High Court of
Delhi. Vide order dated 21.08.2000, the Administrative Judge
dismissed the appeal.
                                                                  E
    11. Against the said order, the appellant filed W.P.No.
2046 of 2001 before the High Court. The High Court, by
impugned judgment dated 21.08.2008, dismissed the petition.

    12. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed this      F
appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

    13. The appellant appeared in-person. Mr. Wasim Qadari,
learned counsel appeared for respondents. Since the
appellant had no legal assistance, he was appearing in person.
We requested Mr. Sreegesh, learned counsel, who was G
present in Court, to appear for the appellant to enable 'us to
decide the appeal.

    14. Heard Mr. Sreegesh, learned counsel forthe appellant
and Mr. Wasim A Qadri, learned counsel for the respondents.       H
 ......




1152             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 10 S.C.R.


 A                15. We record our appreciation for Mr. Sreegesh, learned
            counsel, who on our request argued the case ably with fairness .
          . for the appellant and rendered his valuable.assistance on every
            date of hearing.

 s              16. Submissions of Mr. Sreegesh were three-fold. In the
          first place, he contended that no case whatsoever is made out·
          against the appellant for imposing the punishment of
          compulsory retirement. He also made attempt to find fault in
          departmental inquiry proceedings and contended that the
 C        manner in which the proceedings were held would indicate
          that the appellant did not get fair opportunity to meet tlie
          charges and, therefore, the departmental proceedings are
          rendered bad in law having been conducted in violation of
          principle of natural justice.
 D
                17. In the second place, learned counsel contended that
           in any event the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed
           on the appellant was not commensurate with the gravity of
           charge and being wholly disproportionate to the nature of
 E         charges, this Court should interfere in the quantum of
           punishment and reduce it to make the same in tune with the
           gravity of the charges.

         18. In the third place, learned counsel contended that the
 F appellant was kept under suspension for a long period of 9
   years and 26 days (06.02.1990 to 01.03.1999) without any
   justifiable cause on the part of the respondents and yet the
   respondents excluded this period while calculating the
   appellant's pension, which according to him was not justified
 G and, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to
   count the period of suspension for determining the appellant's
   pension and other retiral benefits.

        19. In reply, learned counsel forthe respondents supported
 H the impugned order. As regards the last submission of the
    PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF                       1153
      DELHI &ANR. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

learned counsel for the appellant, his reply was that since the      A
departmental proceedings were delayed due to the appellant's
seeking frequent adjournments from time to time and hence
he is not entitled to claim the benefit of period of suspension
for fixing his pension which, according to him, was rightly fixed
after excluding the suspension period.                               B

     20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
on perusal of the record of the case, we find force only in the
third submission of the appellant's counsel whereas the first
two submissions are concerned, we find no substance.                 C

     21. We have perused the record of the departmental
proceedings and find that the inquiry officer fully observed
principle of natural justice while conducting the departmental
 proc~edings. It is not in dispute that the appellant was served     o
with detailed charge sheet along with the documents referred
to therein. He filed reply to the charge sheet. The parties were
then given full opportunity to adduce evidence and which they
availed of by examining witnesses in their support and by cross-
examining each of them. What more, in our opinion, is then           E
required in any departmental proceedings? The writ court
examined this issue in detail and rightly recorded the finding
that the inquiry officer observed the principle of natural justice
in the departmental proceedings and found no fault ih the
proceedings so as to entitle the court to interfere in writ          F
jurisdiction.

    22.We find no good ground to take a different view on this
issue and reject this submission being devoid of any merit.
                                                                     G
      23. This takes us to. the next question as to whether the
punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted on the appellant
was justified or not. It was the submission of learned counsel
for the appellant that the punishment of compulsory retirement
was not justified. However, in our view, it was rightly inflicted.   H
1154         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 10 S.C.R.


 A      24_ It is a settled principle of law that once the charges
   leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then ;tis
   for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment
   should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the
   Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and
 B gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire
   service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant
   factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and
   then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules.

 C          25. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing
       authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major)
       then the Courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of
       punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes
       the punishment.
 D
        26. Such power is exercised when the Court finds that the
   delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment
   inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and
   disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby
 E shocking the conscious of the Court or when it is found to be in
   contravention of the Rules.The Court may, in such cases, remit
   the case to the appointing authority for imposing any other ·
   punishment as against what was originally awarded to the
   delinquent employee by the appointing authority as per the
 F Rules or may substitute the punishment by itself instead of
   remitting to the appointing authority.

        27. Learned counsel for the appellant was not, however,
   able to show us with reference to the facts of the case that the
 G case of the appellant satisfies any of the aforementioned
   grounds so as to entitle this Court to interfere in the quantum
   of punishment and hence, in our considered view, the
   punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted upon the
   appellant by the appointing authority having regard to the nature
 H of proved charges appears to be just and proper and does
    PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF                     1155
      DELHI &ANR. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

not call for any interference.                                     A

     28. This takes us to the last submission of learned counsel
for the appellant, which in our considered view, deserves
serious consideration.
     29. One cannot dispute in this case that the suspension B
period was unduly long. We also find that the delay in
completion of the departmental proceedings was not wholly
attributable to the appellant but it was equally attributable to
the respondents as well. Due to such unreasonable delay, the
appellant naturally suffered a lot because he and his family C
had to survive only on suspension allowance for a long period
of9years.
      30. We are constrained to observe as to why the
departmental proceeding, which involved only one charge and        D
that too uncomplicated, have taken more than 9 years to
conclude the departmental inquiry. No justification was
forthcoming from the respondents' side to explain the undue
delay in completion of the departmental inquiry except to throw
blame on the appellant's conduct which we feel, was not fully      E
justified.
      31.Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is
the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry
initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within F
the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases
where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the
pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more
imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is
concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any G
inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent
employee.

   32. As a matter of experience, we often notice that after
completion of the inquiry, the issue involved therein does not
                                                                   H
1156         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 10 S.C.R.


 A     come to an end because if the findings of the inquiry
       proceedings have gone against the delinquent employee, he
       invariably pursues the issue in Court to ventilate his grievance,
       which again consumes time for its final conclusion.

 s      33. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the
   considered opinion that every employer (whether State or
   private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the
   departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the
   delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority
 C to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be
   concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not
   possible for the employer to conclude due to certain
   unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time
   frame then efforts should be made to conclude' within
 D reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and
   the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.

            34. Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, we find
       that the respondent has fixed the appellant's pension after
 E     excluding the period of suspension (9 years and 26 days). In
       other words, the respondents while calculating the qualifying
       service of the appellant for determining his pension did not
       take into account the period of suspension from 06.02.1990
       to 01.03.1999.
 F
        35. Having regard to the totality of the facts and the
   circumstances, which are taken note of supra, we are of the
   view that the period of suspension should have been taken
   into account by the respondents for determining the appellant's
 G pension and we accordingly do so.

        36. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds ,, '
   and is allowed in part only to the extent indicated apove in . .
   relation to fixation of appellant's pension. The respondents are
 H accordingly directed to re-determine the appellant's pension
    PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF                      1157
      DELHI &ANR. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

by taking into account the period of suspension (06.02.1990 A
to 01.03.1999) and then pay to the appellant arrears of the
difference amount from the date he became eligible to claim
pension and then to continue to pay the appellant re-determined
pension regula~ly in future as per Rules. It is to be done within
three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. B

Devika Gujral                              Appeal partly allowed.