Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Another

FACTS

• The appellant, Prem Nath Bali, was a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the District & Sessions Court, Delhi, later promoted to Upper Division Clerk (UDC).

• A departmental enquiry was initiated against him based on a complaint he himself filed, which led to a counter-complaint and the initiation of proceedings against him.

• The appellant was placed under suspension on 06.02.1990.

• The disciplinary proceedings continued for over nine years, concluding only after which he was compulsorily retired.

• The appellant challenged the compulsory retirement and the subsequent non-inclusion of the suspension period for his pension calculation. Both the Administrative Judge and the High Court dismissed his pleas.

ISSUES

1. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted on the appellant was justified.

2. Whether the Respondents were justified in not taking into account the period of suspension (06.02.1990 to 01.03.1999) while calculating the appellant's qualifying service for determining his pension.

JUDGEMENT

• The apex court partially allowed the appeal only in relation to the appellant's pension fixation.

• The punishment of compulsory retirement was not interfered with.

• The respondents were directed to re-determine the pension, considering the entire suspension period (over nine years) as qualifying service for pension benefits, and to pay the difference arrears within three months.

OBSERVATION & RESTRAINT ON MANAGERIAL PREROGATIVE

This judgment acts as a significant restraint on Managerial Prerogative regarding the duration of disciplinary proceedings, effectively setting an outer limit for departmental inquiries.

1. Restraint on Prolonged Inquiry

• The Court expressed strong concern, observing that the departmental proceeding, which involved only one and relatively uncomplicated charge, had taken more than nine years to conclude.

• Duty of the Employer: The Court emphasized that it is the duty of the employer (whether State or private) to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures.

2. Time Limits for Inquiry

• The Court laid down strong guidelines, opining that every employer must make a sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings within a reasonable time and, as far as possible, it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit.

• Where delay is unavoidable, efforts should be made to conclude within a reasonably extended period, but not more than a year.

• Consequence of Delay: The prolonged suspension, which causes "inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee," was the primary reason the Supreme Court interfered with the pension calculation. The Court essentially compensated the employee for the administrative failure and negligence in concluding the inquiry swiftly by counting the suspension period towards his service benefits.

3. Interference with Punishment

• Crucially, the Court chose not to interfere with the quantum of punishment (compulsory retirement), focusing instead on the procedural failure (the delay) and rectifying the financial prejudice caused by that delay. This reaffirms the judicial policy of respecting the employer's ultimate decision on punishment unless it is grossly disproportionate or vitiated by mala fides.