JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pravir Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; also heard Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned Senior Additional AG appearing on behalf of the State Respondents, and Mr. Yangerwati, learned CGC, appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

2. The instant Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as The Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, passed in Original Application No. 046/00251/2020 dated 26.02.2021, whereby The Tribunal did not interfere with the disciplinary proceedings and directed the authorities to complete the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Memorandum of Charge No. POL/ESTT-11/2018 (PT-1) dated 18.12.2018, within a period of 6 (six) from the date of the said Order.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, in terms with the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Another, (2015) 16 SCC 415 and the Central Vigilance Commission Circular No. 07/07/18 dated 26.07.2018, the disciplinary proceedings ought to be concluded once initiated within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as the outer limit and if it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time-frame then efforts should be made to conclude within the reasonably extended period depending upon the case and the nature of enquiry but not more than a year.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.09.2018, a Show-Cause Notice was issued by the Director General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima, asking the petitioner to Show-Cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should not be issued against him inter-alia for failing to maintain absolute integrity in discharging of his bona-fide Government duty by not registering a Police Case on the seizure of suspected contraband Brown Sugar, release of two accused persons and the vehicle used in the transportation of the contraband narcotics and keeping the seized contraband in his personal custody. Thereupon, on 18.12.2018, a Memorandum of Charge was issued by the Home Commissioner to the Government of Nagaland, incorporating the Articles of Charges framed against the petitioner. In the meantime, on 03.12.2018, in exercise of the powers under Rule 3(1) of the AIS (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, one Shri S.M. Tamgadge, IPS, IGP (HQ) PHQ was appointed as the Enquiry Officer with Shri K. Martin Pienyu, IPS, IGP(INT) as the Presenting Officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner.

5. On 22.01.2020, during the proceedings of the Enquiry, the petitioner had submitted a Statement of Objection against the disciplinary Enquiry including the objection that the Enquiry Officer should be from outside the Department and on the basis of the said Objection, the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Sandeep M. Tamgadge felt that in accordance with the Principles of Natural Justice and for procedural prudence the matter ought to be referred to the disciplinary authority for further instructions and till such time the Statement of Objection as raised by the petitioner is addressed by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was kept under suspension.

6. Thereupon, on 17.09.2020, the Governor of Nagaland under powers conferred by Rule 3(1) of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, appointed Shri R. Ramakrishnan, IAS, Principal Secretary (EF & CC) as Enquiry Officer replacing Shri S.M. Tamgadge, IPS, IGP (HQ) PHQ to enquire into the charges held against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner on account of the delay in disposal of the disciplinary enquiry proceedings filed the Original Application No. 046/00251/2020 before The Tribunal for declaration that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondents is illegal non est in the eye of law as being