It is a common knowledge that in the Govt. departments, the proceedings are delayed because of various reasons. Most of the time, it is because of the lethargic attitude and inaction on the part of responsible officers. Many a time, it is because of the influence that may have been exercised by the delinquent
Justice Ashish Shroti in judgment
Bhopal: In a scathing remark on functioning of government departments in regard with action against delinquent personnel, High Court has noted that many a time delay is caused in proceedings due to lethargic attitude and inaction on the part of responsible officers or influence exercised by the personnel concerned
The High Court, Gwalior bench, however, refused to give relief to an employee of Animal Husbandry and Dairying department who petitioned to get departmental action against him quashed on account of, what he said, inordinate unexplained delay in giving show cause notice and then charge-sheet to him.
The employee (petitioner) Devendra Sharma prayed for a direction from the High Court to the respondents not to institute any disciplinary proceedings against him in relation to allegations made in the charge-sheets dated March 27, 2019 and December 12, 2024.
As per the charge-sheets, Sharma who was appointed as bull attender and later promoted to the post of Assistant Veterinary Field Officer (AVFO) posted at the office of deputy director, Animal Husbandry Services Department, Gwalior fraudulently obtained Rs 9.62 lakh against medical expenses reimbursement for treatment of his wife and himself during a period of five years based upon forged and fabricated documents.
In the preliminary enquiry the allegations in the complaint lodged against Sharma were, prima facie, found correct.
Justice Ashish Shroti, in his judgment delivered on December 24, 2025, said,“It is a common knowledge that in the Govt. departments, the proceedings are delayed because of various reasons. Most of the time, it is because of the lethargic attitude and inaction on the part of responsible officers. Many a time, it is because of the influence that may have been exercised by the delinquent.”
He said, “Nobody personally loses anything because of such delay. However, ultimately it is the public money and/or public interest which is to be taken into account…”
“Initially, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on January 18, 2016 asking him to give explanations vis-a-vis allegations. The petitioner gave his reply on March 22,2016. No further action was taken pursuant to this show cause notice. The petitioner gave reply to this charge-sheet also on 27/3/2019 and again nothing happened and the silence prevailed. The respondent no. 2 (Director, Animal Husbandry & Dairying) has now issued the impugned charge sheet dated 12/12/2024…”, reads the judgement.
Justice Ashish Shroti said in his judgment, “The petitioner has challenged this charge-sheet as also the earlier charge-sheet dated 27/3/2019 primarily on the ground of delay. It is his submission that the show cause notice itself was issued after the delay of about 10 years while, the impugned charge-sheets have been issued after further lapse of about five years. He has also submitted that the issuance of charge-sheet dated 12/12/2024 & 27/3/2019, amounts to double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India in view of show cause notice dated 18/1/2016 already issued to the petitioner in relation to same allegations.”
Court further said, “The petitioner has also alleges that respondent no.3 (Dr PS Patel, director, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, impleaded in personal capacity is biased against him, as a result of which, the impugned charge-sheets have been issued.”
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the charge-sheets were liable to be quashed on the ground of ‘inordinate unexplained delay’. His submission was that the allegations made against the petitioner in impugned charge-sheets relate back to year 2010-11 to 2014-15. Thus, the issuance of charge-sheet on March 27, 2019 and December 12, 2024 without there being any explanation for delay, vitiated the action taken by the respondents.
In support of his submissions the petitioner’s counsel placed reliance upon the coordinate bench decisions of the high court in the case of Mohinder Singh Kanwar Vs State of MP & Ors (WP 12170/2021), Suraj Singh Shikarwar Vs State of MP & Ors (WP 16471/2017) and Dinesh Awasthi Vs State of MP & Ors (WP 4145/2015).
The counsel also argued that in view of show cause notice issued to the petitioner on January 18, 2016 under Rule 16 of MP Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966, issuance of subsequent charge-sheets dated March 27, 2019 and December 12, 2024 for the same set of allegations, amount to double jeopardy.
It is his submission, counsel for the petitioner also said, the employee gave reply to the show cause notice on March 22, 2016 and thereafter, no action was taken for substantial period of more than three years, which went to show that respondents were satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner also argued that the respondent no.3 was biased against the petitioner and therefore, with malafide intention, the impugned action was being taken against him.
On the other hand, the court said, counsel for the state supported the impugned action of respondents and submitted that the charge-sheets were based upon the allegations ranging from year 2010-11 to 2014-15.
The counsel for the state argued that the charge-sheets couldn’t be quashed merely based upon the delay in issuance of same particularly when the allegations made against the delinquent are serious in nature.
The counsel for the state also submitted that the allegations of fraudulent withdrawal of government money in the shape of medical expenses had been prima facie found correct and therefore, matter needed to be inquired into.
The court said the Apex Court in the case of Addl. Supdt. of Police v. T Natarajan had stated, “In regard to the allegation that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings was belated, we may state that it is settled law that mere delay in initiating proceedings would not vitiate the enquiry unless the delay results in prejudice to the delinquent officer.”
“Again in the case of LIC v. A Masilamani the Apex Court has considered the similar issue in detail and held ‘the court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is dehors the limits of judicial review. In the event that the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by the court. The same principle is applicable in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings….”
Thus, said Justice Shroti, a charge-sheet couldn’t be quashed solely on the ground of delay and the court was required to take into account all relevant facts including the gravity of charges levelled against the delinquent.
He said the court was required to balance and weigh the circumstances to determine, if it was in the interest of clean and honest administration that the proceedings were allowed to be terminated on the ground of delay, stated the high court in the judgment.
Further, Justice Shroti observed, “The proceedings can be quashed on the ground of delay only when the delinquent can establish in enquiry, the prejudice caused to him because of lapse of time.”
Keeping into account the aforesaid legal position, he said, the allegations made against the petitioner, needed to be examined. The statement of imputations annexed alongwith the charge-sheet went to show that the petitioner was charged with the allegation of withdrawal of Govt money towards medical reimbursement of himself and of his wife on the basis of forged and fabricated medical bills.
In this regard, Justice Shroti said, “The respondent no.5 ( Deputy director, Animal Husbandry Services, Gwalior) verified the documents from Dr Puneet Rastogi, HOD, Cardiology Department, GR Medical College, Gwalior who has certified that the documents do not bear his signatures. It is further alleged against the petitioner that he took reimbursement towards purchase of medicines from the medical stores which are not found registered. This has been certified by the drug inspector.”
Further, said the court, “The post facto sanction for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in his wife’s treatment at CHL Apollo Hospital, Indore amounting to Rs137418 during 13/9/2012 to 8/2/2013 has been found to be not issued from the office of divisional joint director, Health Services, Gwalior.”
The court said, “It’s thus seen that allegations made against the petitioner are serious enough and are based upon the documentary evidence. Allegations are yet to be established in the enquiry.”
While dismissing the petition Justice Shroti said, “In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would not be in the interest of clean and honest administration that the charge-sheet is quashed at this stage merely on the ground of delay. Needless to mention, the petitioner is at liberty to establish prejudice that may have been caused to him because of delay in initiation of enquiry, during the course of departmental enquiry.”
Regarding the petitioner’s counsel’s argument that the show cause notice under Rule 16(1)(a) of CCA Rules was issued to the petitioner on January 18, 2016 he observed, “…it is seen that the disciplinary proceedings were not actually initiated by this show cause notice but were only proposed to be initiated. Thus, it cannot be said that minor penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioner.”
Regarding the issue of double jeopardy raised by the petitioner’s counsel he observed, “This argument is based upon issuance of show cause notice dated 18/1/2016 and charge-sheet dated 27/3/2019 before issuing charge sheet dated 12/12/2024. On the face of it, this argument has also no legs to stand. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India provides that “no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. Thus, what is prohibited under Article 20(2) is prosecution/punishment for the same act. Admittedly, pursuant to show cause notice dated 18/1/2016 and/or chargesheet dated 27/3/2019, no punishment has yet been imposed upon the petitioner. In fact, no enquiry is commenced pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice/charge-sheet. Thus, the argument alleging double jeopardy invoking Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India is not available to the petitioner.”
