Punjab and Haryana High Court sets deadline for disciplinary proceedings against judges

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently directed that inquiry officers and the disciplinary authority must adhere to a fixed timeline for completion of disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers [Sudhir Parmar v Punjab and Haryana High Court]..The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice HS Grewal warned of punitive action in case of failure to abide by the timeframe issued by the High Court in a judicial order.The entire process from issuance of chargesheet to completion of inquiry and the decision of disciplinary authority to government action has to be completed within six months and 25 days, as per the order."The High Court is requested to ensure that in all, ongoing and as well as disciplinary inquiries to be initiated in the future, the following time line be adhered to failing which punitive action be taken against Inquiry Officer or any other erring personnel of the High Court," the Court said in the order..The Court added it is the bounden duty of the inquiry officer and well as the supervisory duty of the Disciplinary Authority (High Court) to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within the timelines prescribed in the rules, in any case within an outer limit of 6-7 months from the date of issuance of charge sheet."Any delay caused or laxity on the part of the Inquiry Officer in concluding the disciplinary proceedings within six months ought to be viewed seriously and critically by the High Court giving, rise to a cause of misconduct on the part of Inquiry Officer unless there are cogent and compelling reasons for delay which ought to be put down in writing by the Inquiry Officer," it said..The Court passed the direction on May 23 while dealing with a plea moved by Additional Sessions Judge Sudhir Parmar, who was suspended in 2023 following registration of a bribery case against him.In the writ petition, he sought a direction to permit him to submit a written statement of defence (reply) to the chargesheet issued to him by the High Court. He cited various reasons for delay in submitting the reply to the charge sheet served upon him in July 2023. His request for extension of time had been rejected..Five judge changes and lawyers "destroying the Bar": The saga of trial judge bribery case in Punjab & Haryana HC.After examining the records, the Court found that Parmar had been asking for various documents and did not file any written response within the stipulated 45-day period. It rejected his argument that the delay was due to him being in judicial custody."The time period of 45 days for submission of written statement of defence would start running after serving of charge sheet on 24.07.2023 till his arrest i.e. from 25.07.2023 till 09.08.2023, which is 16 days and the remaining after the release of petitioner from judicial custody i.e. 02.11.2023. Thus, calculated from 24.07.2023, 45 days period expired on 01.12.2023 (16 days + 29 days = 45 days). However, no written statement of defence was submitted and the petitioner vide Annexures P-3, P4, P-5 and P-6 kept seeking supply of various documents," the Court stated. The Court was surprised to find that the first witness in the case was examined only in January 2025. This speaks volumes about the lack of promptitude on the part of the Inquiry Officer and further failure of the High Court in exercising proper superintendence over the Inquiry Officer, the bench said."In the instant case, not more than 45 days ought to have been granted for submission of written statement of defence starting from 24.07.2023 (the date of serving of charge-sheet)," the Court said, adding that Parmar has no right to seek further time after expiry of 45 days..Taking note of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings are still pending against the trial court judge, the Court said, "Pertinently there is no judicial order in this case restraining the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority from proceeding ahead with the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the act of the Inquiry Officer in granting adjournments liberally for the purpose of filing of written statement of defence is not appreciable."It added that the Inquiry Officer ought to have proceeded ex-parte against Parmar on his failure to file the written statement of defence and proceeded to examine the witnesses and the documents produced by him instead of adjourning the proceedings repeatedly on one pretext or the other. .Thus, the Court rejected the prayer made by Parmar and dismissed the plea. It further directed the Inquiry Officer to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by submitting the Inquiry Report as early as possible..Senior Advocate SK Garg Narwana with advocates Vishal Garg Narwana and Rajat Sheokand represented the petitioner.Advocate Rajeev Anand appeared for the respondents.[Read Order]