Timely completion of disciplinary inquiries is essential to uphold the rights of retired employees, with strict adherence to administrative guidelines mandated by government orders.

JUDGMENT :

Battu Devanand, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.No.01 of 2025 W.P.No.31552 of 2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The facts leading to filing of this Appeal are herein under:-

W.P.No.31552 of 2024 is filed seeking to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending disciplinary proceedings issued vide TEC.No.303 of 2013, dated 03.08.2018 by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) now referred to Commissioner of Inquiries vide G.O.Rt.Nos.462 Revenue (Vigilance-IV) Department, dated 09.05.2023 by the 1^st respondent for the incident pertaining to the year 2010-12 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of existing specific instructions of the Government for early conclusion and as well as the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamilnadu Housing Board , (2005) 6 SCC 636 . The said Writ Petition was disposed of, vide order, dated 03.01.2025 directing the learned Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) to conclude the inquiries, within a period of six (6) months from that day, failing which, the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.303 of 2013, which was transferred to the C.O.I., shall stand quashed automatically without reference to any further orders. Thereafter, the respondents has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the said Writ Petition seeking to extend the time granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court for a further period of six (6) months for concluding the inquiry. The said I.A., was ordered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order, dated 19.09.2025, granting further six (6) months time from that day to conclude the inquiry initiated against the petitioner/appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4. Admittedly, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) to conclude the enquiry within a period of Six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Further, the respondents have filed an Interlocutory application seeking to extend the time granted for a further period of Six (6) months and the same was allowed. Already two (02) months time was expired. In G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C), Department dated 12.09.2022, the Government issued clear instructions to all the concerned to conclude the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the Government servant within a period of three (03) months in all simple cases and in complicated cases, the enquiry has to be completed within five (5) to six (6) months. It appears that the respondents have not strictly followed the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022.

5. In the present case, admittedly, the charge memo was issued to the appellant for the incident pertaining to the year 2012. It is also an admitted fact that now the appellant is 62 years old and retired on 31.07.2025. At this juncture, the respondents ought to have conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant/petitioner as early as possible and allow the appellant to receive the legitimate retirement benefits.

6. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion it is appropriate and desirable to revise the time fixed by the learned Single Judge of this Court to meet the interest of justice.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of with the following directions:-

1) The Interim Order, dated 19.09.2025 passed in I