Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Mrs. Bertha T.A. D'Mello e Daniel, was appointed as Assistant Registrar (Legal) in Goa University on 16/12/2005, effective from 26/11/2005, and confirmed on 29/07/2009 effective 26/05/2008. She was entitled to senior scale from 2013 but was denied because she had not completed training programs, which the University failed to conduct. She appealed to the Chancellor. On 25/4/2023, the Vice Chancellor suspended her with immediate effect pending disciplinary proceedings, on the eve of her candidature being considered for direct recruitment and promotion to Deputy Registrar. On 25/05/2023, a charge memorandum was issued. The Petitioner challenged both orders in Writ Petition No. 332/2023 and Writ Petition No. 333/2023, alleging that the charges were stale (from 2013-2015), some did not constitute misconduct, and the process was arbitrary, mala fide, and vindictive, violating Article 14. The court found that the suspension was based on stale charges, the delay was unexplained, and the decision-making process was unfair. The court quashed the suspension order and the charge memorandum, holding that disciplinary proceedings based on stale charges and without proper justification are arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The court allowed both petitions with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Stale Charges - Suspension - The court examined whether disciplinary proceedings based on stale charges, some not constituting misconduct, can be sustained. Held that charges from 2013-2015, unexplained delay, and lack of current relevance render the proceedings arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50) B) Service Law - Suspension - Pending Disciplinary Proceedings - The court considered the validity of suspension order issued on the eve of consideration for promotion. Held that suspension based on stale charges and without proper justification is punitive and arbitrary, liable to be set aside. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50) C) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Fairness in Decision-Making - The court examined whether the decision-making process leading to suspension and charge memorandum was fair. Held that the process was grossly unfair, arbitrary, and vindictive, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suspension order dated 25/4/2023 and the charge memorandum dated 25/05/2023 issued to the Petitioner are valid and sustainable in law, considering the inordinate delay, staleness of charges, and alleged mala fides.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are allowed. The suspension order dated 25/4/2023 and the charge memorandum dated 25/05/2023 are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Stale charges cannot form basis of disciplinary proceedings
- Suspension must be based on current and serious misconduct
- Delay in initiating proceedings renders them arbitrary
- Article 14 prohibits unfair decision-making process
- Charges not constituting misconduct are liable to be quashed
