Unexplained delay and lethargy in the disposal of disciplinary proceedings can lead to the quashing of the proceedings, especially when the employee has suffered mental agony and suffering due to the protracted proceedings.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus and to set aside the disciplinary proceedings which are pending from December, 2013. He also seeks consequential relief for effecting regular promotion on par with his juniors.

2. This Court has heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner was working as Inspector of Police and was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on ad hoc basis on 16.07.2020. He was issued a Charge Memo on 06.12.2013 for some alleged offences and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.18 of 2013). Learned counsel argues that from 2013 till date no effective proceedings have been taken and that because of the pendency of the enquiry proceedings the petitioner’s juniors were already promoted and petitioner is denied promotion. He argues that this delay is ground enough to quash all further proceedings. He relies upon the judgments which are filed by him and in particular the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in P.V. Mahadevan v M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 to argue that the appellant should not be made to suffer because of the mistakes of the department and that the proceedings should be quashed. He also relies upon Prem Nath Bali v Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Another, (2015) 16 SCC 415 and State of A.P. v N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 and other cases to argue that in certain cases of such gross delay this Court should not merely direct the conclusion of the old enquiry but should in fact quash all further proceedings. It is his submission that a Government Officer should not be penalized in this manner by keeping the proceedings pending and promoting his juniors. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this itself is a ground enough to quash all further proceedings. He relies upon the G.O. Ms. No.679, dated 01.11.2008, issued by the State Government, which stipulated time frame of 3 months and 6 months for simple and complicated cases respectively. It is his submission that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 if the enquiry is not completed action can also be initiated against the concerned enquiring authority.

4. Learned Government Pleader for services-I vehemently opposes the prayer. He contends that the State had option of conducting enquiry and/or to refer it to Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. This particular case was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. However, as the Tribunal has not been functioning the proceedings got delayed. He points out that due to bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh further delay had occurred. Learned Government Pleader points out that as mentioned in reply to para 4 a number of letters were addressed to High Court of Andhra Pradesh for appointment of officers for the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in order to proceed with the enquiries. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, as per the learned Government Pleader, is a part of the Judiciary and therefore the State cannot pass any orders or direct them to hold enquires quickly. It is his contention that as the petitioner is accused of a charge, which is serious in nature, the proceedings should be allowed to be continued and should not be directed to be quashed. He also submits that the judgment of P.V. Mahadevan case (1 supra), which is relied on by the petitioner is not at all applicable. He points out that only in case of gross willful delay in concluding the enquiry, quashing is permissible, but in the case on hand the case of “systematic delay” and not the case of deliberate personal delay. Therefore, learned Government Pleader argues that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

COURT:

5. As per the settled law on the subject delay of finalization of the proceeding is a ground to set asi