Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against a government servant does not automatically result in quashing of charges. The delinquent employee must demonstrate how the delay prejudiced their right to a fair trial.

Sathiadev, J.

Petitioner in WP No. 33 of 1988 is the appellant and two respondents therein are the respondents herein (ranking of parties as in Writ Petition)

2. On petitioner being served with a memo dated 10th December, 1987 issued by the Second respondent, farming charge-sheet against him that he has been receiving prohibition mamool, as illegal gratification during the year 1982, he has preferred the writ petition claiming that, for an occurrence alleged to have taken place in May, 1982, a charge memo served upon him in December, 1987 is without authority of law and that respondents have not given reasons for the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings against him and that when one Perumal, his colleague, who is said to have disbursed the mamool to him having been acquitted in the proceedings initiated against him earlier in point of time and if the disciplinary proceeding based on such a charge memo is to be proceeded with petitioner would be greatly prejudiced : and that principles of natural justice would be violated, if such belated disciplinary proceedings are launched,

3. Learned Judge repelled these contentions and dismissed the writ petition, and therefore in this appeal, the same points are canvassed by learned Counsel Mr. R. Shanmugham.

4. The first submission made by him is that, when an inordinate delay of 5 1/2 years takes place in initiating disciplinary proceedings, it results in principles of natural justice being violated, and therefore, it has to be quashed. According to him, unless such an approach is made, the service personnel would be greatly prejudiced by being called upon to defend charges relating to which they will not be in position to secure witnesses and they themselves would not be in position to recollect necessary facts to defend effectively. Unless for alleged delinquencies the enquiries are conducted immediately diligently, the disciplinary proceedings of this nature launched after five long years, would leave the petitioner high and dry in defending himself. Virtually he is pushed into a helpless situation wherein neither his memory would come to his assistance nor any witness would come forward to defend him against such serious charges, which would result in loss of livelihood, which is guaranteed in Art. 21, of the Constitution. Nothing precludes the Administration to have a vigilant eye over its personnel and initiate disciplinary proceedings whenever derelictions are noticed without any loss of time. To maintain the morale in service, unless within a reasonable point of time, a Government servant is told of what charges are being framed against him, he cannot in the discharge of his duties keep on noting down as to what are the defences available to him, if his actions are suspected by wrong understanding of situation or if actions are taken by motivation or if he is to be implicated by burking the records or circumstances are twisted against him, even-though he maintained a clean record of service. Transfer being an incident of service, Government servants on being shifted from places where they have worked and after considerable number of years, if charges of this nature are framed, they would be unable to defend themselves, inspite of having worked honestly and duty consciously. When a public servant is so placed in the discharge of duties, if disciplinary proceedings are to be taken, it should be done without any conceivable delay, and if not done, then the disciplinary authority will have to state the reasons to convince the Court as to what had prevented him from prompt initiating of proceedings, and how the belated initiating of proceedings is justifiable in law. Without such justification, a delay of 5 1/2 years of this nature, would by itself result in quashing of disciplinary proceedings.

5. In advancing this proposition, he relies upon the following decisions. The earliest decision is Athithyaramana v. Commr. H. R. & C. E. Dept 1971 AIR(MAD) 170., wherein the l