Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, the petitioner, a government engineer, challenged a departmental proceeding initiated against him just a few days before his retirement on 30 June 2020. The proceeding was based on allegations dating back to his tenure as Executive Engineer between 2008–2011 in the Public Health Engineering Division, Gaya.
The dispute arose from a complaint about the poor quality of hand pumps installed under four separate agreements. A Three-Man Committee found that non-ISI hand pumps were used against contract conditions. It attributed negligence and lack of supervision to the petitioner. The Committee’s report was submitted in September 2012, and the petitioner gave his explanation in July 2013.
Despite this, the authorities took no further action for nearly five years. A charge sheet was issued only in February 2018, to which the petitioner replied in November 2018. After further review, the department again concluded negligence and decided on 17 June 2020 to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings—barely two weeks before his retirement.
The petitioner argued that such extreme delay—almost 8–10 years after the alleged acts—caused prejudice and was unfair. He relied on P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636 and State of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishnan (1998) 4 SCC 154, where the Supreme Court had held that protracted disciplinary proceedings inflict mental agony and should not be prolonged without justification.
The State countered that delay alone does not vitiate proceedings unless prejudice is shown, citing State of Bihar v. Kusheshwar Das, 2017 (1) PLJR 758.
The Patna High Court, however, found that:
- The allegations related only to negligence and lack of supervision—not corruption or misappropriation.
- There was no specific explanation for why no action was taken for years after the petitioner’s 2013 reply.
- The charge was vague, without clear particulars of duty the petitioner failed to perform.
- The proceeding was initiated just before retirement, which was unjust and prejudicial.
The Court ruled that allowing the proceeding after such inordinate delay, with no corruption charges, would be unfair. It quashed the resolution of 17 June 2020 and set aside the proposed departmental action.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- Protection for government employees: Disciplinary proceedings cannot be indefinitely delayed and then suddenly revived near retirement.
- Administrative accountability: Departments must act within a reasonable time after inquiry reports and explanations are received.
- Public confidence: By quashing stale disciplinary action, the Court ensures that officers are not harassed with prolonged uncertainty.
- Precedent for future cases: The ruling reinforces that “delay without justification” in initiating or continuing proceedings can itself be a ground to quash them.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Whether departmental proceedings initiated after 8–10 years can continue?
– Decision: No. Inordinate delay without justification renders the proceeding unfair and prejudicial. - Whether proximity to retirement affects validity of delayed proceedings?
– Decision: Yes. Starting proceedings just before superannuation, based on decade-old allegations, is improper and prejudicial. - Whether negligence (without corruption charges) warrants continuation despite delay?
– Decision: No. Since there was no specific charge of corruption or misconduct, and only vague negligence alleged, continuation was unjust.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636
- State of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishnan, (1998) 4 SCC 154
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636
- State of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishnan, (1998) 4 SCC 154
- Distinguished: State of Bihar v. Kusheshwar Das, 2017 (1) PLJR 758
Case Title
Ajoy Kumar Sinha v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7332 of 2020
Citation(s)
2021(1) PLJR 629
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the petitioner: Mr. Sourav Suman, Advocate; Mr. Sanchay Srivastava, Advocate
- For the respondents (State): Mr. Arvind Ujjwal, Standing Counsel-4
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNzMzMiMyMDIwIzEjTg==-z7jh8imhT8M=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
