IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate and unexplained delays in disciplinary proceedings can violate the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, particularly when the charged officer is nearing retirement, as it prejudices their ability to defend against stale charges.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

M.S.SONAK, J. - Heard Mr Padgaonkar for the petitioner and Mr Manish Salkar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent - State.

2. The petitioner, who retired as a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. S.P.), effective from 31/3/2016, challenges the impugned memoranda dtd. 7/2/2012 and 26/11/2015 seeking to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for incidents that allegedly occurred between 28/1/2004 and 31/5/2005 when he was holding the additional charge of Dy. S.P. Airport Immigration at Dabolim Airport, Goa.

3. On 7/2/2012, the petitioner was served with a Charge Memorandum alleging that the petitioner had unauthorisedly managed to clear 85 housemaids for service to gulf countries through Dabolim Airport in violation of the applicable circulars/orders.

4. The petitioner filed a detailed reply on 30/4/2012 denying the charges and explaining how he was not concerned with the alleged charge. Upon receipt of the response, the respondents took no action against the petitioner for almost three years, leading the petitioner to legitimately believe that his reply was satisfactory, and all further proceedings were closed.

5. However, on 26/11/2015, the petitioner was served with a fresh Charge Memorandum, making the same allegation again. There was no explanation why this second Charge Memorandum was issued when the decision on the first Charge Memorandum was yet to be communicated to the petitioner.

6. Nevertheless, without prejudice, the petitioner filed yet another detailed response dtd. 22/1/2016, reiterating that he had no role to play in the clearance of said 85 housemaids to Gulf countries. The petitioner specifically pointed out that he had not issued any instructions or orders to any immigration officers at Dabolim Airport for the period from 28/1/2004 to 31/5/2005 to clear the immigration of the said housemaids illegally or otherwise. The petitioner pointed out that if any of the Officers at the immigration counters had committed any illegality, the petitioner could not be held responsible.

7. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31/3/2016 and was allowed to accordingly retire. For about three months post-retirement, the petitioner heard nothing further in the matter until on 21/6/2016, the petitioner was informed that an inquiry officer had been appointed to inquire into the charges in Charge Memorandum dtd. 26/11/2015. As noted earlier, the charges in the Charge Memorandum dtd. 26/11/2015 pertain to the period from 28/1/2004 to 31/5/2005. Thus, the impugned Charge Memorandum dtd. 26/11/2015 purports to rake up incidents that allegedly took place ten to eleven years earlier.

8. By orders dtd. 15/3/2017 and 20/6/2017, the inquiry proceedings were effectively stayed. The position continues to date.

9. In the affidavit in reply dtd. 15/3/2017 filed on behalf of respondents nos.1 and 2, we find that there is no explanation for issuing the second Charge Memorandum dtd. 26/11/2015 after the issue of the first Charge Memorandum dtd. 7/2/2012, which was replied to in detail by the petitioner. Moreover, there is no explanation for the unreasonable delay in issuing the two Charge Memoranda dtd. 7/2/2012 and 26/11/2015. Such explanation was necessary because initiating disciplinary proceedings for incidents alleged in 2004-05, only in 2015, at least prima facie violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

10. Therefore, a valid explanation was a must from the respondents. In the absence of any valid explanation, a retired employee cannot be made to face disciplinary proceedings, given the inordinate delay. In the returns, the only so-called explanation is that the concerned Officers had a "workload" and could not attend to this matter. This is hardly an explanation, but the same constitutes a lame excuse which cannot be accepted.

11. The reply on behalf of respondent no.2 purports to justify the allegation in the Charge Memorandum, does not answer the crucial issue of why a se