The delay in disciplinary proceedings can cause hardship and prejudice to the accused, and if the charges are not found to have been made with mala fide intention or ulterior motive, the proceedings should not be prolonged to harass the accused and deprive them of promotion and other benefits.

Common Order: (Elipe Dharma Rao, J.)

1. The above two writ petitions are at the instance of the State, challenging the common order dated 15-4-2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short CAT), allowing the applications, O.A. Nos.854 and 869 of 2008, filed by the first respondent herein.

2. The factual matrix involved in the present writ petitions is common and further common arguments were advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, the writ petitions were, therefore, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. The first respondent joined as Deputy Superintendent of Police (direct recruit) in the Tamil Nadu Police Service in the year 1983. In the year 1994, he was promoted and appointed in the service of the Indian Police Service and while he was serving as Superintendent of Police, Karur District, he was placed under suspension vide order in G.O. Ms. No.239 dated 20-3-2002 passed by the first petitioner. The suspension was on the ground that an enquiry into certain grave allegations against him was contemplated. The suspension was, however, revoked on 5-6-2004 in view of the recommendation made by the Review Committee. He was, therefore, reinstated in service, pending decision on the report of the inquiring authority recommending departmental action against him.

Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent by serving him a charge memo dated 29-9-2006, imputing certain corrupt activities, misconduct and irregularities in the matter of transfers and postings of police personnel.

All the seven charges framed against him relate to the period when he was working as Superintendent of Police between 2000-02 in the Karur District. Not satisfied with the written statement of defence with reference to the above said charge-memo submitted by the first respondent, the first petitioner appointed an Inquiring Authority to inquire into the veracity of the charges framed against the first respondent. There was a change of Inquiry Officer at the request of the first respondent. During the pendency of the inquiry, the Government chose to drop Charge Nos.6 and 7 as contained in the charge-memo and accordingly the inquiry was confined to Charge Nos.1 to 5 only. The Inquiry Officer, in her detailed inquiry report, recorded a finding that while Charges 1 and 4 were held proved and Charge No.5 was partly proved, Charge Nos. 2 and 3 were held not proved. The inquiry report was communicated to the first respondent and on receipt thereof, he made a further representation dated 7-4-2008, requesting the Government to drop further action on the charges held to have been proved against him in the inquiry. No order, however, has been passed by the Government pursuant to the inquiry report.

When the matter stood at this stage, the first applicant approached the CAT by filing an application in O.A. No.854 of 2008, challenging the proceedings in Charge Memo dated 29-9-2006 and to quash the same. In the said original application, the CAT passed an interim order, directing the Government not to pass final order in the disciplinary proceedings till the disposal of the application.

While initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings is one episode of this litigation, the other episode is first respondents claim of promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG). The sum and substance of the first respondents claim is that he was eligible and entitled for the conferment of Selection Grade in the cadre of Superintendent of Police much earlier and as well as promotion to the post DIG, he was overlooked and deprived of the same in view of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Aggrieved by the denial of promotional prospects, the first respondent also filed another application in O.A. No.869 of 2008 before the CAT seeking the relief of promotion to the post of DIG with effect from 8-8-2005 onwards without prejudice to his claim for promotio