Delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings can lead to quashing of the proceedings, even if the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings is not functioning, if the delay is inordinate and causes mental agony to the employee.

JUDGMENT

1. Since the issues of law and facts are common in both these cases, the matters were taken up for hearing together.

2. Both the petitioners before this Court are working in the Excise Department. Both are going to retire on 31.08.2021.

3. Both were facing departmental proceedings. Sri M.Vijay Kumar, is the learned counsel for the petitioners in both these cases. It is his contention that based on some alleged incidents that took place through out the State of Andhra Pradesh, about 200 cases were registered. In some cases, FIRs were registered and some cases were referred to Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings. Two of these are the cases of the present petitioners.

4. The incidents for which the petitioners are charged took place in December, 2011 and January, 2012. Learned counsel points out that the Tribunal Enquiry Case No.98 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner in W.P.No.11776 of 2021 and Tribunal Enquiry Case No.74 of 2013 was registered against the other petitioner in WP.No.11779 of 2021. After the cases were registered in 2013 on 06.01.2018, a charge memo was issued fixing date of hearing on 17.02.2017. Thereafter, learned counsel submits that no proceedings have taken place and the Tribunal did not hold any proceedings whatsoever. On the ground of this delay, learned counsel argues that the petitioners are entitled to the relief and that the entire proceedings should be quashed. He brings to the notice of the Court, G.O.Ms.No.679 GA (ser-C) Department dated 01.11.2008, wherein a time limit of six months is fixed for disposal of complicated cases. In fact, he argues that in case of abnormal delay in conducting the proceedings, action should be taken against the “Enquiry” Officer in terms of this G.O. He also argues that in the years 2019-2020, a number of orders were passed by learned single Judges to quash the proceedings on the ground of delay alone. Therefore, learned counsel prays for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners.

5. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader for Services-I opposes granting of any relief. He submits that as the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings is not functioning, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the alleged delay and claim exoneration/a writ of Mandamus dismissing the charges. He points out that even if there is delay, at best, this Court can direct the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to conclude the enquiry, but it cannot quash the charges.

6. After hearing the counsels for some time and noticing the law on this subject, this Court posted the matter for further hearing to enable the counsels to argue whether (a) this Court can only give a direction to the Enquiry Officer/Tribunal to complete the proceedings within a time frame or (b) it can also include a default clause in the order by which the proceedings would be automatically closed in case they are completed as directed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri M.Vijay Kumar thereafter filed a memo along with cases with USR.No.32800 of 2021. The list of cases relied upon is given below:

(1) State of Punjab and others v. Chamanlal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570.

(2) P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D.Tamilnadu Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636.

(3) M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India and others, (2006) 5 SCC 88.

(4) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Prabash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565.

(5) Secretary, Forest Department v. Abdur Rasul Chowdury, (2009) 7 SCC 305.

(6) The Government of A.P. v. A.Rajeswar Reddy, (2010) 3 ALD 501 (DB).

8. It is his contention by relying on these cases that the Courts have a duty to quash the proceedings due to the delay.

9. He also points out that despite the provisions of the A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960, the respondent-State did not take any action to expedite and complete the enquiries. He argues that even after the learned single Judges passed a series of orders, which are filed as material papers, the respondents did not take steps to exp