Disciplinary inquiries must comply with guidelines for timely resolution, upholding principles of natural justice, especially regarding the rights of government employees approaching retirement.

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 in W.P.No.31558 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.31558 of 2024 is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending Disciplinary Proceedings issued vide TEC.Nos.89 and 229 of 2013 Dated 06.01.2017 and 26.07.2017 by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) now referred to Commissioner of Inquiries vide G.O.Rt.Nos.464 and 363 Revenue (Vigilance-IV) Department, Dated 09.05.2023 and 13.04.2023 by the 1^st respondent, for the incident pertaining to the year 2010-2012 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 03.01.2025, directing the learned Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) to conclude the inquiries, within a period of six (06) months from that today, failing which, the charge memos issued to the petitioner vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.89 of 2013, dated 06.01.2017 (Ex.P1) and Tribunal Enquiry Case No.229 of 2013, dated 01.08.2017 (Ex.P2), 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. 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 has 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 memos were issued to the appellant for the incidents pertaining to the years 2010-12. It is also an admitted fact that now the appellant is 61 years old and he is at the stage of attaining superannuation. At this juncture, the respondents ought to have allow the appellant to discharge his remaining service with peace rather than placing sword over his head like this by initiating disciplinary proceedings on the verge of his retirement.

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 le