Case Note & Summary
The dispute originated from disciplinary proceedings initiated against a Lower Division Clerk in the Revenue Department of the Uttar Pradesh State Government. The respondent was suspended on 04.10.1986 on allegations of misappropriating Government funds. Departmental proceedings were conducted where the respondent initially participated but later remained ex parte. After conclusion of the enquiry, by order dated 13.06.1988, the major penalty of termination of service was imposed. This order was affirmed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division on 29.07.1988, and subsequent revision before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed. Nearly 11 years after the termination, the respondent filed Claim Petition No.1903 of 1999 under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, seeking to set aside the punishment order. During this intervening period, criminal proceedings were initiated against the respondent, resulting in acquittal giving him the benefit of doubt. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal allowed the claim petition on 07.10.2013. The State's subsequent writ petition (Service Bench No.143 of 2015) was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench on 02.08.2017, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the claim petition filed after 11 years of the termination order should have been entertained by the Tribunal and High Court. The appellants contended that the challenge should have been dismissed on the ground of delay alone. The Supreme Court analyzed the procedural history and found that the respondent had participated in the enquiry proceedings initially but later chose to remain ex parte. The Court emphasized that the challenge was raised 11 years after the initial termination order. The Court reasoned that such inordinate delay alone warranted dismissal of the claim petition. While allowing the State's appeal and setting aside the orders of both the Tribunal and High Court, the Court directed dismissal of the respondent's claim petition. However, considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the respondent's prolonged litigation, the Court directed the appellants to pay Rs.1,00,000 as ex gratia payment to the respondent within six weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay and Laches - Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 - Respondent filed claim petition 11 years after termination order - Court held that challenge should have been dismissed on ground of delay alone - Delay not condoned despite long litigation history (Paras 1-2) B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Ex Parte Proceedings - Respondent initially participated in enquiry but later remained ex parte - Court noted this fact while considering merits of challenge - No procedural irregularity found in conducting enquiry (Paras 1-2) C) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Termination Order - Order dated 13.06.1988 imposed major penalty of termination - Upheld by appellate and revisional authorities - Criminal proceedings resulted in acquittal on benefit of doubt (Paras 1-2) D) Civil Procedure - Ex Gratia Payment - Court directed payment of Rs.1,00,000 as ex gratia considering long litigation history - Payment to be made within six weeks despite allowing appeal (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claim petition filed after 11 years of the termination order should have been entertained by the Tribunal and High Court
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Orders passed by the Tribunal and High Court set aside. Claim petition preferred by the respondent dismissed. Appellants directed to pay Rs.1,00,000 as ex gratia payment to respondent within six weeks. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay and laches in challenging disciplinary orders
- Ex parte proceedings in departmental enquiries
- Jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal
- Principles of condonation of delay in service matters
