Supreme Court Upholds Delay as Ground for Dismissal in Service Matter: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Krishna Bahadur Singh (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 September 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 616

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Can a government employee challenge a termination order after an unexplained delay of 11 years? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a service matter appeal. The court considered whether the High Court was correct in setting aside a termination order despite the significant delay in the employee’s challenge. This case highlights the importance of timely action in legal challenges, especially in service matters. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The respondent, Krishna Bahadur Singh, was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Revenue Department of the Uttar Pradesh State Government. On 4th October 1986, he was suspended following allegations of misappropriation of government funds. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Initially, he participated in the inquiry but later remained ex-parte. After the conclusion of the inquiry, on 13th June 1988, a major penalty of termination of service was imposed on him. He then appealed to the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, who affirmed the termination order on 29th July 1988. A subsequent revision petition was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue.

Almost 11 years later, in 1999, the respondent filed a Claim Petition No. 1903 of 1999 under the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, seeking to set aside the termination order. During this period, criminal proceedings were also initiated against the respondent, in which he was acquitted with the benefit of doubt. The Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal allowed the claim petition on 7th October 2013. The State of Uttar Pradesh then challenged this decision in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, which was rejected on 2nd August 2017. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent initially faced departmental proceedings which led to his termination. The order of termination was upheld by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, and the Board of Revenue. The respondent then approached the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal, which allowed his claim petition. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, rejected the State’s writ petition, upholding the Tribunal’s decision. The State of Uttar Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

This case primarily involves the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, under which the respondent filed his claim petition. The Act provides a mechanism for government employees to challenge service-related orders. The case also touches upon general principles of service law and the importance of timely challenges to administrative orders.

Arguments

The arguments were primarily centered on the delay in filing the claim petition.

• Appellant’s (State of Uttar Pradesh) Submissions:
  • The State argued that the respondent’s challenge to the termination order was filed after an inordinate delay of 11 years.
  • The State contended that the respondent had participated in the initial inquiry proceedings and later chose to remain ex-parte.
  • The State asserted that the challenge should have been dismissed on the grounds of delay alone.
• Respondent’s (Krishna Bahadur Singh) Submissions:
  • The respondent argued that the termination order was unjust and should be set aside.
  • The respondent sought relief from the termination order, despite the delay.
  • The respondent relied on the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal, which had set aside the termination order.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the termination order despite the significant delay of 11 years in filing the claim petition by the respondent.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its reasoning. The decision was primarily based on the principle that unexplained delay is a valid ground for dismissing a challenge.

Judgment

The Court did not cite any authorities in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Court was the inordinate delay of 11 years in filing the claim petition by the respondent. The Court emphasized that such a significant delay, without any reasonable explanation, is sufficient ground to dismiss the challenge. The Court also noted that the respondent had initially participated in the inquiry proceedings and later chose to remain ex-parte. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the respondent had been litigating the matter for a long time and thus directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as ex-gratia payment.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

The ratio of fact to law is as follows:

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the principle that unexplained delay is a valid ground for dismissing a challenge. The Court did not delve into the merits of the termination order, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of delay. The Court emphasized the importance of timely action in legal challenges, especially in service matters.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the delay was deemed sufficient to dismiss the challenge.

The Court’s decision was clear: “The challenge raised at his instance was 11 years after the initial order, on which ground alone, the challenge should have been dismissed.” The Court also stated, “In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set-aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court and dismiss the claim petition preferred by the respondent.” and “However, considering the facts and circumstances and particularly the fact that the respondent has been litigating for fairly long time, we direct the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) by way of ex gratia payment to the respondent.”

Key Takeaways

• Significant delays in challenging administrative orders can lead to dismissal of the challenge.
• Government employees must act promptly in seeking legal remedies for service-related grievances.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of timely action in legal challenges, especially in service matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) by way of ex gratia payment to the respondent within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an unexplained delay of 11 years in challenging a termination order is a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the challenge. This reinforces the principle that timely action is crucial in service matters. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, setting aside the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court. The Court emphasized that the respondent’s challenge to the termination order, filed after an unexplained delay of 11 years, should have been dismissed on the grounds of delay alone. The Court, however, directed the State to pay an ex gratia amount of Rs. 1,00,000 to the respondent. This judgment underscores the importance of timely action in seeking legal remedies in service matters.

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue was whether a challenge to a termination order could be dismissed solely on the grounds of an unexplained delay of 11 years.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court decided that the High Court was wrong to set aside the termination order, as the challenge should have been dismissed due to the significant delay.

Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment?

A: This judgment highlights that government employees must act promptly when seeking legal remedies for service-related issues. Delays can be fatal to their case.

Q: Did the Supreme Court provide any relief to the employee?

A: Yes, while the Supreme Court dismissed the employee’s challenge, it directed the State to pay an ex gratia amount of Rs. 1,00,000 to the employee considering the long period of litigation.