Chennai: A mere delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings against an employee will not automatically become fatal to the entire proceedings, Madras high court has said, adding, “Courts must examine the reasons for the delay and the circumstances in which the alleged misconduct was discovered.”
The alleged incident occurred between 1995-97, but the charge memorandum was issued in 2011, according to Sukumar. Due to the long delay in framing the charges, a single judge of the court quashed the termination order. Allowing the appeal, the court pointed out that the delay in issuing the charge memo was due to an interim order passed by a single judge of the court. Therefore, the delay cannot be attributed against the management of the society for initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings, the court said.
The court made the observations while upholding the termination of S Sukumar, an employee of the Dharapuram Public Servants’ Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society, over allegations of misappropriation of the society’s funds. Aggrieved, the management of the society moved the present appeal.
As to the allegation of violation of natural justice, the court said, “It is not about issuance of show cause notices, but whether a fair opportunity was afforded to the delinquent officer. The test to be applied is whether the principles of natural justice has been complied with by affording a fair opportunity to the delinquent officer.”
Each case has to be decided by considering the facts, the nature of the allegations, the mitigating circumstances, and the cause for the delay in initiating the departmental disciplinary proceedings,” the court said. “Mere delays per se would not be sufficient to quash the entire charge memorandum in all cases.