Unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings may indicate bias and prejudice, and procedural irregularities can render the entire proceeding non est in the eye of law.

JUDGMENT :

(Sugato Majumdar, J.) :

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 31.12.2013 passed in OA No. 551 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench.

2. In order to consider the question as to whether the order suffers from any infirmity requiring our interference, it may be just and proper to notice the relevant facts.

3. On 26/08/2005, while the petitioner was working in the post of Matron in Howrah Orthopedic Hospital, Eastern Railway, she was harassed and mentally tortured by the Chief Matron, namely, Smt. Sadhana Roy (in short, Sadhana) and such fact was duly reported to the authorities. On the same date Sadhana also lodged a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge, Howrah Police Station alleging inter alia that she had been assaulted by the petitioner. On the same day, another joint petition was also submitted by sixty two staff of the Howrah Orthopedic Hospital, Eastern Railway against the petitioner alleging misbehavior. She was placed under suspension on 26/08/2005 itself. The suspension order was subsequently revoked by the respondent no.4 vide memo dated 24/01/2006. The petitioner was thereafter issued a charge sheet and on 07/09/2005 a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him. In revision the order of compulsory retirement was set aside by an order dated 20/6/2007 and she was reinstated with further direction to initiate proceedings from initial stage. In the said order it was also directed that the period starting from the date of effecting compulsory retirement to the date of reinstatement be treated as ‘Dies Non’. More than four years thereafter and on the verge of retirement, the petitioner was charge sheeted for the second time vide memo dated 25/11/2011 issued by the respondent no.5 to which the petitioner replied on 17/12/2011. In the said proceeding, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 02/05/2012 to which the petitioner replied on 17/05/2012. Again a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority with effect from 23/05/2012. The petitioner thereafter preferred a statutory appeal on 24/05/2012. By an order dated 30.05.2012, the Appellate Authority upheld the order of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata which was registered as OA No. 551 of 2012. Upon contested hearing the same was dismissed by the order impugned in this petition.

4. The first point argued by Mr. Bhattacharya was that the enquiry was conducted with a closed mind and with an ulterior motive to victimize the petitioner. The same charge sheet was issued for the second time without any application of mind and in a mechanical manner. There is no reason why after the order of de novo enquiry passed in revision on 20/06/2007, the disciplinary authority sat tight over the matter for more than four years and suddenly spurted into action and imposed the earlier punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 23/05/2012, i.e., only eight days prior to her scheduled date of retirement on 31/05/2012. Such delay being unexplained, prejudice to the employee is writ large on the face of it. The delay is clearly attributable to the respondents and such delay maligns their actions. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the observations and decisions of the Supreme Court of India in the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Bani Singh [1990 (Supp.) SCC 738], State of Punjab vs Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570], State of A.P vs N.Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC 154].

5. It was further argued by Mr. Bhattacharya that the enquiry officer himself was the presenting officer. The said fact vindicates and reinforces the allegations of actual biasedness and a closed mind enquiry. The enquiry officer himself put all the questions to the petitioner on behalf of the disciplinary authority. Relying upon the ratio of M.