Summary
A railway locomotive driver who overshot a signal in 2005 was removed from service; the penalty was later reduced in appeal. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the orders in 2010 because the disciplinary authority had been a member of the joint enquiry team, directed a fresh decision by another authority and said the exercise 'be completed within two months'. An application for more time was dismissed on a technical ground and the new disciplinary authority removed the driver in February 2011. Without appealing, he returned to the Tribunal contending the proceedings had abated; the Tribunal disagreed but gave him liberty to appeal. The Calcutta High Court held the removal a nullity, ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages and passed strictures on the officer. The Supreme Court set the High Court's order aside and restored the Tribunal's.
Issues
- Whether disciplinary proceedings become a nullity or abate when the disciplinary authority decides after the period fixed by the Tribunal in a remand order that specified no consequence of default, and after an application for extension was dismissed.
- Whether an employee may bypass the statutory appeal on the premise that the order is a nullity, and whether strictures against the disciplinary authority were warranted.
Provisions considered
- Time-bound directions in remand orders, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal)The two-month period in the Tribunal's order of 03.09.2010 was fixed only to secure expedition; absent a statutory provision or a stated consequence of default, the forum that fixes such a period, or a higher forum, retains the power to enlarge it, and expiry does not terminate the proceedings. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 10, 10.1)
Held
- Where an adjudicating authority fixes a period for doing a thing without providing for the consequence of default, the period does not acquire the status of a statutory mandate; such conditional orders operate in terrorem to check delay, and the jurisdiction to fix time includes the jurisdiction to extend it (Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das). The proceedings neither abated nor became a nullity on expiry of the two months, and the dismissal of the extension application on a technical ground did not alter that. (¶¶ 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 11)
- Fixing time limits often causes more complication than it serves justice; such a period should be fixed only for strong and compelling reasons, and if it is to carry adverse consequences for the defaulter, both the reasons and the consequences must be stated in the order. (¶ 10.1)
- The High Court's strictures against the disciplinary authority, founded on the wrong premise that the proceedings were a nullity, were unjustified; even if the proceedings ought not to have continued, there was no basis to call the officer disrespectful of the judicial process, and the observations stand annulled. (¶ 12)
- The Tribunal's order of 21.06.2013 is restored; the respondent may appeal against the removal order of 17.02.2011 within 30 days, to be decided on merits uninfluenced by any observations of the Tribunal, the High Court or this Court. The interim order directing payment of 50% back wages against security is made absolute and the security discharged. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed to the extent indicated; the Calcutta High Court's judgment of 30.08.2013 in WPCT No. 330 of 2013 set aside and the Central Administrative Tribunal's order of 21.06.2013 restored, with liberty to the respondent to appeal within 30 days; the order of 14.08.2015 on 50% back wages made absolute and the security discharged. No order as to costs.