Delay alone is not a sufficient ground to quash disciplinary proceedings. Prejudice must be demonstrated, and the gravity of the charges and all relevant factors involved in the case must be considered. The court emphasized the need to balance the interests of clean and honest administration with the impact of delay on the delinquent employee.

ORDER :

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking to quash the charge sheet in T.E.C.No.307 of 2013 on the file of the 3rd respondent herein.

2. The charge framed by the Tribunal against the petitioner is that, “while he was working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, SHO, Peddapuram, East Godavari District from 05.01.2010 to 30.06.2012, the petitioner herein along with other informal liquor groups, actuated by corrupt motive and in connivance with the leaders of S.U.S. and other Liquor Groups, received Mamools and abused official position by omission of lawful duties i.e. allowed belt shops, lose sales and consumption at the wine shops, sales beyond business hours, to sell the liquor over and above MRP rates and also not taken prompt action to control violations of Excise Act/Rules, besides allowing the operation of A4 wine shops in benami names of various liquor groups and running belt shops and thereby caused pecuniary advantage to the leaders of the liquor groups by not taking prompt action as mandated in accordance with law and rules and conditions of the licence under A.P. Excise Act, and thereby, the petitioner is guilty of mis-conduct within the meaning of Rule 3 (1) & (2) of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 r/w Rule 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989 framed under the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 as amended in 1993.

3. The present Writ Petition came to be filed to quash the above T.E.C.No.307 of 2013 on the ground that there is inordinate delay in conducting and concluding the departmental enquiry. Hence, they are entitled to the relief of quashing of the entire proceedings inter alia it is contended that the Government has power to withdraw any case referred to the Tribunal at any time before the enquiry is conducted under Section 4 (A) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960. Despite the power vested with the Government, the Government has not exercised such power and has not withdrawn the case and the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that in some cases this court has disposed of the Writ Petitions filed by the similarly situated persons, wherein in those cases, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with a condition that an enquiry has to be completed within the stipulated time, failing which the entire proceedings should be lapsed. Aggrieved by the condition, the respondents have filed Writ Appeal Nos.456, 470, 476, 484, 485 of 2021 and this Court has dismissed all the Writ Appeals affirming the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Despite the said condition imposed, the respondent authorities have not conducted any enquiry and allowed the order came to be final. The petitioners also relied on the G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008. Wherein, the said G.O. a time was fixed for early completion of departmental enquiries. As per the said G.O., the disciplinary cases initiated against the Government employees shall be completed as expeditiously as possible within six months of its initiation and in case of abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, action shall be initiated against the concerned inquiring authority, and a period of six months is allowed in complicated cases and in other cases the enquiry shall be completed within a period of three months.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments in the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D.Tamilnadu Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 and also relied in Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the proceedings for not conducting/ concluding the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time on the ground that delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings would cause the mental agony and suffering due to the protracted proc