PREM NATH BALI versus REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI &AL\JR.
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1145, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 1145 
PREM NATH BALI 
v. 
REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF DELHI &Al'\JR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 16, 2015. 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR 
SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service law: Disciplinary proceedings -Appellant put C 
on suspension - Disciplinary proceedings continued for more 
than 9 years - Order of compulsory retirement - Plea of 
appellant that he did not get fair opportunity to meet the 
charges and therefore disciplinary proceedings were bad in 
law having been conducted in violation of principle of natural D 
justice - Held: Evidence showed that appellant was given 
full opportunity to adduce evidence - There was no violation 
of rules of natural justice - Interference with order of 
compulsory retirement not called for. 
E 
Administrative law: Judicial review - Compulsory 
retirement -
Scope of interference with the order of 
punishment inflicted by appointing authority- Held: Courts 
are generally slow to interfere i,yith the quantum of punishment 
and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes the F 
punishment - In the instant case, appellant was not able to 
show any ground to call for interference with the punishment. 
Delay/laches: Appellant put on suspension -
Disciplinary proceedings continued for more than 9 years -
G 
Exclusion of this period while calculating appellant's pension 
-Justification of- Held: Suspension period was unduly long 
- Delay in completion of departmental proceedings was not 
wholly attributable to the
appellant but it was equally 
H 
1145
1146 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
attributable to the respondents as well - It is the duty of the 
employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated 
against the delinquent employee is concluded within the 
shortest possible time by taking priority measures - No 
justification from the respondents' side to explain undue delay 
B in completion of the departmental inquiry- In the facts and 
circumstances, period of suspension should be taken into 
account by the respondents for determining the appellant's · 
pension - Accordingly, authorities directed to re-determine 
the pension. 
c 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not in dispute that the appellant was 
served with detailed charge sheet along with the 
o documents referred to therein. He filed reply to the charge 
sheet. The parties were then given full opportunity to 
adduce evidence and which they availed of by examining 
witnesses tn their support and by cross-examining each 
of them. The writ court examined this issue in detail and 
E rightly recorded the finding that the inquiry officer 
observed the principle of natural justice in the 
departmental proceedings and found no fault in the 
proceedings so as to entitle the court to interfere in writ 
F 
jurisdiction. [Para 21] [1153-D-F] 
2. It is a settled principle of law that once the charges 
leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then 
it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what 
punishment should
be imposed on the delinquent 
G employee as per the Rules. The appointing authority, 
keeping in view the nature and gravity of the charges, 
findings of the inquiry officer, entire service record of 
the delinquent employee and all relevant factors relating 
to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and then 
H imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules. Once
PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF 
1147 
DELHI &ANR. 
such discretion is exercised by the appointing authority A 
in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) then 
the Courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of 
punishment and only in rare and appropriate case 
substitutes the punishment. Such power is exercised 
when the Court finds that the delinquent employee is B 
able to prove that the punishment inflicted on him is 
wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate to 
the gravity of the proved charges thereby shocking the 
conscious of the Court or when it is found to be in 
contravention of the Rules. The Court may, in such C 
cases, remit the case to the appointing authority for 
imposing any other punishment as against what was 
originally awarded to the delinquent employee by the 
appointing authority as per the Rules or may substitute 0 
the punishment by itself instead of remitting to the 
appointing authority. 
The appellant was not able to 
show any grounds so as to entitle Court to interfere in. 
the quantum of punishment. [Para 24 to 27] [1154-A-G] 
3. One cannot dispute in this case that the E 
suspension period was unduly long. T_he delay in 
completion of the departmental proceedings was not 
wholly attributable to the appellant but it was equally 
attributable to the respondents as well. Due to such F 
unreasonable delay, the appellant naturally suffered a 
lot because he and his family had to survive only on 
suspension
allowance for a long period of 9 years. The 
departmental proceeding, which involved only one 
charge and that too uncomplicated, have taken more G 
than 9 years to conclude the departmental inquiry. No 
justification was forthcoming from the respondents' side 
to explain the undue delay in completion of the 
departmental inquiry except to throw blame on the 
appellant's conduct which was not fully justified. It is the H
1148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental 
inquiry initiated against the delinquent. employee is 
concluded within the shortest possible time by taking 
priority measures. In cases where the delinquent is 
placed under suspension during the pendency of such 
B inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the 
employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the 
shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss 
and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee .. 
After completion of the inquiry, the issue involved therein 
C does not come to an end because if the findings of the 
inquiry proceedings have gone against the delinquent 
employee, he invariably pursues the issue in Court to 
ventilate his grievance, which again consumes time for 
0 
its final conclusion. Keeping these factors in mind, every 
.. employer (whether State or private) must make sincere 
endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry 
proceedings once initiated against the delinquent 
employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to 
E such proceedings and as far as possible it should be 
concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it 
is not possible for the employer to conclude due to 
certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings 
within the time frame then efforts should be made to 
F conclude within reasonably extended period depending 
upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more
than a year. [Paras 29 to 33) [1155-B-H; 1156-A-D] 
4. The respondent fixed the appellant's pension after 
G ·excluding the period of suspension (9 years and 26 
days). In other words, the respondents while calculating 
the qualifying service of the appellant for determining 
his pension did not take into account the period of 
suspension from 06.02.1990 to 01.03.1999. Having 
H regard to the totality of the facts and the circumstances,
PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF 
1149 
DELHI &ANR. 
the period of suspension should have been taken into A 
account by the respondents for determining the 
appellant's pension. [Paras 34, 35) [1156-E-G] 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 958 
of2010 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2008 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition.(C) No. 2046 
of2001 
Sreegesh, V. S. Lakshmi, Balraj Dewan for the Appellant. C 
Wasim A Qadri, Rekha Pandey, Zaid Ali, T. Qadri, D. S. 
Mahra, Anil Katiyar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1, This appeal is filed 
against the final judgment and order dated 21.08.2008 of the 
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition(c) No. 2046 
D 
of 2001 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed 
E 
by the appellant herein. 
2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, 
which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the 
relevant facts in brief infra. 
F 
3. On 01.10.1965, the appellant joined the office of District 
& Sessions Court, Delhi as Lower Division Clerk. He was 
confirmed w.e.f. 06.07.1976. Thereafter on 26.07.1986, he 
was promoted as Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.). In May, 1989, 
he was post~d as U.D.C. as in-charge o( copying agency G 
criminal si.de at Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 
4. While working as U.D.C. and in-charge of Copying 
Agency (Criminal) at Patiala House Court, on 23.01.1990, the 
.
appellant submitted a written complaint against one Window H
1150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Clerk, namely, Smt. Brij Bala, to the officer in-charge of the 
Copying Agency, Patiala House Courts stating therein that she 
is not discharging her duty effectively and she often used to 
close the counter of the Copying Agency before the prescribed 
time and after lunch also she used to resume her duty after the 
B prescribed time. Therefore, the litigants had occasion to make 
a complaint to the appellant and he had to depute other official. 
to attend the work. The appellant requested for her transfer. 
5. On the same day, Smt. Brij Bala also made a statement 
C to the superior officer that on 22.01.1990 after closing the 
application register at 1.00 p.m., she came to know that some 
applications, which were not even entered in the register on 
that day, were entered in CD2/Dak register subsequently and 
the certified copies were got prepared of those applications 
D on the same date. She was also pressurized to deliver the 
copies on the same date at 2.30 p.m. When she refused to 
deliver the copy, the appellant quarreled with her and used 
unwanted words in the office, which were uncalled for. 
E 
6. The office-in-charge forwarded the aforesaid statement 
F 
of Smt. Brij Bala to the District Judge. On the basis of said 
complaint, a preliminary enquiry was made. Thereafter a 
departmental enquiry was also held against the appellant. On 
06.02.1990, the appellant was placed under suspension. 
7. A memorandum dated
18.07.1990 was served on the 
appellant by the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi 
that the authority proposes to hold an enquiry against him under 
Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control 
G and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short "the CCS Rules") which 
included the statement of articles of charges and other relevant 
documents. 
8. The disciplinary proceedings, which commenced on 
H 18.07 .1990, continued for more than nine years. Pending
.. 
PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF 
1151 
DELHI &ANR. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
disciplinary proceedings, the appellant sought revocation of A 
suspension order but such representation made by the 
appellant was not considered. Subsequently, vide order dated 
01.03.1999, the then District & Sessions Judge, exercising 
the powers conferred under Clause C of sub-rule 5 of Rule 10 
of CCS Rules revoked the order of suspension with immediate B 
effect. The issue, whether the period of suspension is to be 
reckoned as period on duty, was not decided and directed to 
be taken up after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 
. 9. The District & Sessions Judge, Delhi passed two orders C 
dated 27.10.1999 and 28.10.1999 imposing a major penalty 
of compulsory retirement on the appellant. It was also ordered 
that the appellant will not be entitled to any amount more than 
the allowances already paid during the period of suspension. 
10. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed an 
appeal before the Administrative Judge of the High Court of 
Delhi. Vide order dated 21.08.2000, the Administrative Judge 
dismissed the appeal. 
11. Against the said order, the appellant filed W.P.No. 
2046 of 2001 before the High Court. The High Court, by 
impugned judgment dated 21.08.2008, dismissed the petition. 
D 
E 
12. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed this 
F 
appeal by way of special leave before this Court. 
13. The appellant appeared in-person. Mr. Wasim
Qadari, 
learned counsel appeared for respondents. Since the 
appellant had no legal assistance, he was appearing in person. 
We requested Mr. Sreegesh, learned counsel, who was G 
present in Court, to appear for the appellant to enable 'us to 
decide the appeal. 
14. Heard Mr. Sreegesh, learned counsel forthe appellant 
and Mr. Wasim A Qadri, learned counsel for the respondents. 
H
...... 
1152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
15. We record our appreciation for Mr. Sreegesh, learned 
counsel, who on our request argued the case ably with fairness . 
. for the appellant and rendered his valuable.assistance on every 
date of hearing. 
s 
16. Submissions of Mr. Sreegesh were three-fold. In the 
first place, he contended that no case whatsoever is made out· 
against the appellant for imposing the punishment of 
compulsory retirement. He also made attempt to find fault in 
departmental inquiry proceedings and contended that the 
C 
manner in which the proceedings were held would indicate 
that the appellant did not get fair opportunity to meet tlie 
charges and, therefore, the departmental proceedings are 
rendered bad in law having been conducted in violation of 
D 
principle of natural justice. 
17. In the second place, learned counsel contended that 
in any event the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed 
on the appellant was not commensurate with the gravity of 
charge and being wholly disproportionate to the nature of 
E charges, this Court should interfere in the quantum of 
punishment and reduce it to make the same in tune with the 
gravity of the charges. 
18. In the third place, learned counsel contended that the 
F appellant was kept under suspension for a long period of 9 
years and 26 days (06.02.1990 to 01.03.1999) without any 
justifiable cause on the part of the respondents and yet the 
respondents excluded this period while
calculating the 
appellant's pension, which according to him was not justified 
G and, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to 
count the period of suspension for determining the appellant's 
pension and other retiral benefits. 
19. In reply, learned counsel forthe respondents supported 
H the impugned order. As regards the last submission of the
PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF 
1153 
DELHI &ANR. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
learned counsel for the appellant, his reply was that since the A 
departmental proceedings were delayed due to the appellant's 
seeking frequent adjournments from time to time and hence 
he is not entitled to claim the benefit of period of suspension 
for fixing his pension which, according to him, was rightly fixed 
after excluding the suspension period. 
B 
20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
on perusal of the record of the case, we find force only in the 
third submission of the appellant's counsel whereas the first 
two submissions are concerned, we find no substance. 
C 
21. We have perused the record of the departmental 
proceedings and find that the inquiry officer fully observed 
principle of natural justice while conducting the departmental 
proc~edings. It is not in dispute that the appellant was served o 
with detailed charge sheet along with the documents referred 
to therein. He filed reply to the charge sheet. The parties were 
then given full opportunity to adduce evidence and which they 
availed of by examining witnesses in their support and by cross-
examining each of them. What more, in our opinion, is then 
E 
required in any departmental proceedings? The writ court 
examined this issue in detail and rightly recorded the finding 
that the inquiry officer observed the principle of natural justice 
in the departmental proceedings and found no fault
ih the 
proceedings so as to entitle the court to interfere in writ 
F 
jurisdiction. 
22.We find no good ground to take a different view on this 
issue and reject this submission being devoid of any merit. 
23. This takes us to. the next question as to whether the 
punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted on the appellant 
was justified or not. It was the submission of learned counsel 
G 
for the appellant that the punishment of compulsory retirement 
was not justified. However, in our view, it was rightly inflicted. 
H
1154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
24_ It is a settled principle of law that once the charges 
leveled against the delinquent employee are proved then ;tis 
for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment 
should be imposed on the delinquent employee as per the 
Rules. The appointing authority, keeping in view the nature and 
B gravity of the charges, findings of the inquiry officer, entire 
service record of the delinquent employee and all relevant 
factors relating to the delinquent, exercised its discretion and 
then imposed the punishment as provided in the Rules. 
C 
25. Once such discretion is exercised by the appointing 
D 
authority in inflicting the punishment (whether minor or major) 
then the Courts are slow to interfere in the quantum of 
punishment and only in rare and appropriate case substitutes 
the punishment. 
26. Such power is exercised when the Court finds that the 
delinquent employee is able to prove that the punishment 
inflicted on him is wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and 
disproportionate to the gravity of the proved charges thereby 
E shocking the conscious of the Court or when it is found to be in 
contravention of the Rules.The Court may, in such cases, remit 
the case to the appointing authority for imposing any other · 
punishment as against what was originally awarded to the 
delinquent employee by the appointing authority as per the 
F Rules or may substitute the punishment by itself instead of 
remitting to the
appointing authority. 
27. Learned counsel for the appellant was not, however, 
able to show us with reference to the facts of the case that the 
G case of the appellant satisfies any of the aforementioned 
grounds so as to entitle this Court to interfere in the quantum 
of punishment and hence, in our considered view, the 
punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted upon the 
appellant by the appointing authority having regard to the nature 
H of proved charges appears to be just and proper and does
PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF 
1155 
DELHI &ANR. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
not call for any interference. 
A 
28. This takes us to the last submission of learned counsel 
for the appellant, which in our considered view, 
deserves 
serious consideration. 
29. One cannot dispute in this case that the suspension 
B 
period was unduly long. We also find that the delay in 
completion of the departmental proceedings was not wholly 
attributable to the appellant but it was equally attributable to 
the respondents as well. Due to such unreasonable delay, the 
appellant naturally suffered a lot because he and his family C 
had to survive only on suspension allowance for a long period 
of9years. 
30. We are constrained to observe as to why the 
departmental proceeding, which involved only one charge and D 
that too uncomplicated, have taken more than 9 years to 
conclude the departmental inquiry. No justification was 
forthcoming from the respondents' side to explain the undue 
delay in completion of the departmental inquiry except to throw 
blame on the appellant's conduct which we feel, was not fully E 
justified. 
31.Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is 
the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry 
initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within 
F 
the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases 
where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the 
pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all
the more 
imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is 
concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any G 
inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent 
employee. 
32. As a matter of experience, we often notice that after 
completion of the inquiry, the issue involved therein does not 
H
1156 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
come to an end because if the findings of the inquiry 
proceedings have gone against the delinquent employee, he 
invariably pursues the issue in Court to ventilate his grievance, 
which again consumes time for its final conclusion. 
s 
33. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the 
considered opinion that every employer (whether State or 
private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the 
departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the 
delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority 
C to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be 
concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not 
possible for the employer to conclude due to certain 
unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time 
frame then efforts should be made to conclude' within 
D reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and 
the nature of inquiry but not more than a year. 
34. Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, we find 
that the respondent has fixed the appellant's pension after 
E excluding the period of suspension (9 years and 26 days). In 
other words, the respondents while calculating the qualifying 
service of the appellant for determining his pension did not 
take into account the period of suspension from 06.02.1990 
to 01.03.1999. 
F 
35. Having regard to the totality of the facts and the 
circumstances, which are taken note of supra, we are of the 
view that the
period of suspension should have been taken 
into account by the respondents for determining the appellant's 
G pension and we accordingly do so. 
36. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds ,, ' 
and is allowed in part only to the extent indicated apove in . . 
relation to fixation of appellant's pension. The respondents are 
H accordingly directed to re-determine the appellant's pension

PREM NATH BALI v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF 
1157 
DELHI &ANR. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
by taking into account the period of suspension (06.02.1990 A 
to 01.03.1999) and then pay to the appellant arrears of the 
difference amount from the date he became eligible to claim 
pension and then to continue to pay the appellant re-determined 
pension regula~ly in future as per Rules. It is to be done within 
three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. 
B 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal partly allowed.