Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot be initiated After Lapse - Karma
Spread the love

Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot be initiated After Lapse of Considerable Time, Otherwise, It Would be a mode of Harassment: Delhi HC

 

Contents News/Article Date:  12th  November 2022

Relating to which Act:  The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946;

Applicable to which State:  N C R.

Type:   Judgement –   The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh stated that “the disciplinary proceedings must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities.”

Pertains to   employers and employees

Relevance of this news:   Karma Management Global Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd is in the business of Payroll, Outsourcing, and Regulatory Compliances since its inception in 2004 since then, it has brought in a lot of efficiencies and technological upgradations with experts on its role, to ease the hassles of Payroll Processing, Temp Staffing On-boarding, Regulatory and Payroll compliances by providing customized solutions to all its elite clients.

Karma Global has over 6000 employees in its role as “outsourced employees” better known as “Global Contingent Workforce Management Employees” who are deputed on the premises of the clients for rendering excellent services to their businesses aimed towards the fulfillment of objectives.

In this respect, Karma has a sound HR policy in which grievance procedures, rules, regulations, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are detailed in a meticulous manner for information of all employees so as to pre-empt any issue or employee-related issues and problems if any, are nipped immediately for a quick turn around and resolutions.

In this particular judgment, the bench noted that “the disciplinary proceedings must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. This proposition cannot be a rigid and inflexible guideline restricting judicial discretion, but then there has to be an explanation that must be forthcoming to justify the delay and laches. They cannot be initiated after a lapse of considerable time, as then the entire purpose of conducting the disciplinary proceedings would become a mode of harassment and this Court cannot allow such a lackadaisical approach to be perpetuated. It is unreasonable to hold that the Respondent Corporation would have taken 10 years to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner.”

Subject:     Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot be initiated After Lapse of Considerable Time, Otherwise It Would be a mode of Harassment: Delhi HC

 

 

For greater details, appended below is the complete news item

 

 

JUDGEMENTS

 

Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot be initiated After Lapse of Considerable Time, Otherwise, It Would be a mode of Harassment: Delhi HC

 

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh-Delhi Hc

 

The Delhi HC on Friday stated that disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated after a lapse of considerable time, as then the entire purpose would become a mode of harassment.

The bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh stated that “the disciplinary proceedings must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities.”

In this case, the Petitioner joined the Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. as a Deputy Manager. He was promoted to the rank of Manager.

It categorically mentioned the eligibility criteria for the PSUs/Federation for negotiation, as to who could undertake to procure the contracted goods directly from the Mandis without involving middlemen.

APO raised an arbitral dispute against the Respondent and an award was passed in favour of the APO. A charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner that took place in the year 1995 and the Petitioner was asked to file his reply to the said memorandum.

 

The Disciplinary Authority held all the charges as proved against the petitioner.

 

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of recovery from the pay of the petitioner or such other amount as may be due to him to the extent of 5% for the pecuniary loss allegedly caused to the Corporation.

Aggrieved with the said order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner filed his appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner.

 

The issues for consideration before the bench were:

  1. Whether non-submission of certain documents can be said to have caused prejudice to the Petitioner in meeting his defence before the Disciplinary Authority?

 

  1. Whether is there any delay in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by the Respondent Corporation? If yes, can the disciplinary proceedings be quashed on that ground?

 

The bench noted that “the disciplinary proceedings must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. This proposition cannot be a rigid and inflexible guideline restricting the judicial discretion, but then there has to be an explanation which must be forthcoming to justify the delay and laches. They cannot be initiated after a lapse of considerable time, as then the entire purpose of conducting the disciplinary proceedings would become a mode of harassment and this Court cannot allow such lackadaisical approach to be perpetuated. It is unreasonable to hold that the Respondent Corporation would have taken 10 years to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner.”

High Court observed that there is an unexplained delay on the part of the Respondent Corporation in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner which in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be sustained. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent Corporation.

In view of the above, the bench allowed the petition.

 

Case Title: GS Shergill v. Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. 

Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

Case No.: W.P.(C) 4796/2011

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, Mr. Lalit Mohan, Mr. Shivam Roy

Counsel for the respondent: Mrs. Anju Bhattacharya, Ms. Suriti, and Mrs. N. Chandra

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »
whatsapp-logo