Delay in launching disciplinary proceedings prejudices employee’s case: Court

When a supervisor is hauled up after 23 years for his alleged laxity in supervising construction, examined by an enquiry officer without witness and called upon to cough up about Rs 3.70 lakh in sixty instalments, it amounts to a grave injustice to such employee inasmuch as he would not be having in his possession any evidence to plead his innocence. The Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. R. Chakrapani therefore had no hesitation in holding the action of the housing board unsustainable in law. Long interval between the alleged act of negligence and initiation of action by itself is sufficient to quash such proceedings. What compounded the illegality of the employer in this case was his brazenness in framing charges without so much as a single witness who the employee concerned could have cross examined. Besides, no employee can be expected to keep in his possession documents and other proofs for 23 long years on the paranoid belief that some day he could be hauled over the coals.