SHRI D.V.S. YADAV Vs. THE LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (URBAN DEVELOPMENT)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has questioned the memo of charges dated 31.07.2007 and prayed for payment of consequential benefits. The charges against him pertained to the year 1990 -94. Though the applicant made a representation dated 23.08.2011 to the Lt. Governor of Government of NCT of Delhi praying for dropping the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him, but in the said representation he has not taken the plea of delay. Also in the representation dated 1.04.2013, the applicant has espoused that the O.A. 533/2014 enquiry officer was not willing to proceed with the enquiry in the absence of defence documents demanded by him, thus the proceedings might be dropped. On 13.02.2014, when the O.A. came up for hearing, learned counsel for applicant read out charges against the applicant and his representation made to the Lt. Governor. No other argument was advanced by him. However, we could find that in para 5 of the OA, it is pleaded that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and Anr. ( : (1991) 16 ATC 514) in view of delay of 20 years in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, same is vitiated. As far as the issue of delay is concerned, in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Appala Swamy ( : (2007) 3 Scale 1), Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and each case must be determined on its own facts. As has been viewed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case the principle upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are (i) where by reason of delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee and (ii) it caused prejudice to the employee. In the said case, their Lordships further viewed that the cause of prejudice is to be made out by the employee before the inquiry officer. For easy reference, para 12 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow: -

(2.) IN Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society & Ors. ( : (2013) (6) SCC 515), Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed that the delay in institution of the proceedings should not generally be ground to interfere with the same. Para 14 of the judgment reads as under: -