Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings will prejudice the case of the delinquent employee, and the procedure adopted in the enquiry must adhere to the principles laid down by the Apex Court.

D.MURUGESAN, J. -

This writ appeal, at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short, "the Board"), is directed against the order allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent-employee. The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the delinquent employee") was issued with the charge memo dated 16.7.2003 by the Board relating to his improper supervision in respect of the payments made towards construction at various points of time. As the explanation offered by the delinquent employee was not accepted by the Board, an enquiry was conducted. Admittedly, in the enquiry, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the Board. However, the delinquent employee was examined by the enquiry officer and, after extracting statements from him in the form of questions and answers, he was found guilty of the charges and a report was submitted. On the basis of such report, explanation were called for and the delinquent employee denied the charges. The delinquent employee also contended that the manner in which the enquiry came to be conducted was not proper, as he was questioned by the enquiry officer. Based upon the enquiry, he was issued with the order dated 29.6.2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,110/-per month for a period of 59 months and a sum of Rs.6,166/-for one month. The said order was questioned in the writ petition on the ground that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated, muchless the incident for which the charges were framed relates back to 23 years prior to the date of charge memo. The learned Judge, having gone into the contention, held that the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings will vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings. Apart from that, the enquiry was conducted ex parte and no witnesses were examined on behalf of the Board. The learned Judge also found that a strange procedure of putting questions to the delinquent employee was adopted by the enquiry officer himself to hold the delinquent employee guilty by placing reliance upon such statement of evidence, ultimately, set aside the order. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. On the above factual background, the following two questions arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the Board would be justified in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by way of charge memo after a period of 23 years of the incident?

2. Whether the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in the conduct of enquiry by way of putting questions and eliciting answers from the delinquent employee would justify the test of reasonableness?

4. So far as the first question as to the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings is concerned, there is a series of judgments of the Apex Court on this issue. In State of Andhra Pradesh V. N.Radhakrishnan, (1998) 4 SCC 154, the Apex Court, while considering the unexplained delay of 10 years having caused prejudice to the delinquent, held as follows:-

"19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary p