The Supreme Court has ruled that continuing disciplinary proceedings beyond a time limit set by a court or tribunal—without seeking an extension—is unlawful. The Court emphasized that this practice violates legal procedures and undermines the integrity of judicial directives.
“Continuation of disciplinary proceedings beyond the time stipulated by a tribunal or court could invite interdiction if no bona fide attempt is shown to have been made to seek an extension of time.” — Supreme Court
A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that when courts fix a time limit with a condition that the enquiry will lapse if not concluded, the disciplinary authority loses jurisdiction if the proceedings continue without proper approval. The ruling came in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Prakash Singh, involving a retired Assistant Engineer accused of embezzling ₹2.5 crores from the Panchayati Raj funds in Kushinagar.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Condemns Pahalgam Terror Attack as "Affront to Humanity"
The Court laid down key principles:
Extension must be sought: If proceedings cannot be completed within the court-specified time, a formal application for extension must be made.
Objection by employee is valid: If the accused raises objection, proceedings should halt until a court grants an extension.
No objection doesn’t mean waiver: Even if no objection is raised, the authority must still apply for an extension before passing final orders.
The Court found severe violations in the enquiry process:
- No witnesses were examined.
- Relevant documents weren’t provided to the accused.
- The enquiry officer relied solely on pre-existing documents without fresh evidence or testimony.
“We are at loss to comprehend how the same mistake could be repeated… the procedure followed is plainly indefensible.” — Supreme Court
Read Also:- SARFAESI Act | Pre-Deposit Not Needed for All DRT Appeals: Supreme Court
The Court strongly upheld that furnishing the enquiry report to the accused is a fundamental safeguard.
“This valuable right applies uniformly… Even if rules are silent, the report must be furnished.” — Supreme Court
In this case, the respondent, Ram Prakash Singh, was denied fair opportunity under the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. The Court ruled that the enquiry and resulting punishment were illegal due to breach of due process, including failure to seek extension after the tribunal’s three-month deadline had expired.
As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal and High Court decisions, dismissing the State’s appeal. The respondent was declared entitled to full retiral benefits from his date of retirement, with adjustment for provisional pension.
Case Details: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ, LUCKNOW v. RAM PRAKASH SINGH
