P JAGADEESAN Vs. COMMISSIONER PONDICHERRY MUNICIPALITY PONDICHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is as follows:

(2.) IN this case, notice of motion was ordered on 27.11.1997. When the matter came up for admission on 21.4.1999, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought the leave of this Court to amend the prayer as different charges have been framed on the delinquent by the respondent municipality in W.M.P.No.7063 of 1999. The prayer in the W.M.P.No.7063 of 1999 is as follows: ?to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the Memorandum No.PM/EStt.1-249/A1, dated 28.1.1988 read with Memo No.PM/Estt/1-145/A1/90, dated 22.8.1990 read with the suspension order NO.PM/Estt. 1-148/A1/90, dated 22.8.1990 issued by the respondent, after calling for the concerned records from the respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all arrears of salary and other attendant benefits from 26.10.1987 with penal interest.? The abovesaid petition was ordered on 21.4.1999.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Radhakishan State of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Radhakishan State of Andhra Pradesh v. N.Radhakishan , A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1833 wherein the Apex Court has held that the delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. The Apex Court has further held that disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to taken its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be showed that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. In the above referred case, the Apex Court has quashed the charges on the ground of delay.