Maha Singh v. State Of Haryana And ORS
!
""# $ %
""" &%% % %"
""""% % $!
'( $"
% % $ ("
% $ () !
# $ %%&'%%( ) *+ , , %.
/0 %/!123!045 $ 6 17%/1%'3 $- %% /8 %/!723!(45 $ $ - 9 - 6
17%/1%'3 5 5 , - $ 5 !8: -
%
5*%% /& !.87- ;
< /7 !!
%/!/ 1/ /7 %/!% , *!..&5 24 5 ,, 5 - 5 - /!
/7 !..&
%!
/7 !..& $ ;)* , -, 5 5 # $ ,
< %!
/7 !..& 5 - , - , 5 5 5 - - 5 %% /7 !..& 5, 5
5%!
/& !..& - %% /7 !..&%/ /& !..&5
= ,5, $ !& 5 $- , %1 /% %/!% 5 6 8 ) 2 ->4 6 !.8( + 2!..&?.(4 , $ -5 - - ,
9 , + - %.
/0 %/!123!04-, 6 17%/1%'3271: , 4 "
5 5 - %% /8 %/!723!(4$ 3,5 &
(
@ - ,
, $
A $ !& ,
!..&5 , 5 %1 /% %/!%# -
# ,$ $5
* + 5 ' -, !..&?.( 5 $-, ,
,5 + , 5 , -- , # .
@ $- $ ,- , ,5 5 3 - 5$ B *, 5 5, $, -5 55 - -%!
/7 !..& $ $ $, $
, %.
/0 %/!1%% /8 %/!73 , $ 5 5 B- !/
@ 5
,$ , 5 # , - ,5
!!
@ $- 5
* $ - 5 ;)* , -5 $ , * $,
* ,5 3$ 5 $ 5- ,)<) 2 4+ 6 (.07%7'3 !%
, , 5 5 ) 2 -> 46 !.8( 5+
,$, !1
* $- -,5 , - - 5 # 5
, $ -, - $ ,6 .
!0 #$)
!7
@ - ) 5 $ , -
!0
*, -- 5 A5#
!&
CA ) , $ 5- $ - - - 5
+
!(
5 - 5 B -, ,55 A "
- +
- 5 5 A --- ,3
$ ;)* ,5 , -$ $ + , "
5 , $ B -
!8
- %% /7 !..& ,5 $ 5 - 5 < 5 -;
) - )-- 5 - $,
!.
* $ $ + , $ B $ - -$,,5,,- * -
!"#$ %& $! ) 5$5 $- , - -$$ + $,
24. We would like to add that in any event, even it ultratechnical
# notions regarding the concept of possession were to be incorporated into the case, it would be wrong to say that there had been anything beyond a technical and unintentional breach of the law. The facts are truly and accurately given according to the popular and natural meaning of the words used; nothing was hidden. The goods did reach the quotaholder in the end, or rather his proper agent, and we cannot see what anyone could stand to gain in an unauthorised way over the very natural mistake which occurred owing to what seems to have been a timelag in the consequences of a change of agency. So, even if here was a technical breach of the law, was not one which called for the severe strictures which are to be found in the trial Court's judgment and certainly not for the savage sentences which the learned Magistrate imposed. In the High Court also we feel a nominal fine would have met the ends of justice even on the view the learned Judges took of the law.
* -$ 5 "In a penal statute of this kind it is our duty to interpret words of ambiguous meaning in a broad and liberal sense so that they will not become traps for honest, unlearned (in the law) and unwary men. If there is honest and substantial compliance with an array of puzzling directions, that should be enough even if on some hypercritical view of the law other ingenious meanings can be devised." %/
--$
- $ ,-$ 5 --$5 * , $ A - )+ , , $$ , $
%!
A !& , , ,
,- !..&5 , 6 8 ) 2 ->4 !.8( 5 %1 /% %/!% , B- = A $ $ # A -
%%
* ' !""( )*+ ,"-
- ) - , A --$55 $,
4. The appeal against the order dated 16121987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. The irregularities which were the subjectmatter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 19751977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then.
If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.
@5 .
/0 1 &2 32 '
+ *((# %& $45 A - $ , -, 5 ,
18. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher Government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings.
As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
%7
;
& 5 5 A # - ,$$+ ) $,5 - - B$ -5 $, The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying
, the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer enterusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations.
%0
* # 5, "
- $ $# , +
- , !..&?.(5-
%&
D 5$ 6 .
!0 #$) 6 - 9 -5
,$5 -, , ,
$ A , $ $,-E, 55
%(
D+ -$ - 5 - - ,-, $ , - , $ $ # , - , $ * 5 - $-, 5 -$ -!..&?.( 5$
$+ ,
$
%8
$- $ 5 5,E, - 1// ) 9 , - # + - $$-5 $
%.
* - 5 $+ - - - , - $ - $
A, $ ,
2 1/
- )
,,,
$ * - ,%.
/0 %/!1 23!045 %% /8 %/!723!(4 $
+
1!
- 6 17%/1%'3 - ,5 &:- $ $ 5 &5
1%
)+ 55
, -% $ (.
""# anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No