Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings causes mental agony and distress to the employee and should be avoided in the interest of inspiring confidence in government employees.

1. The case of the petitioner is that initially, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer and at present, he is working as Divisional Engineer [Highways], under the NABARD and Rural Roads Division, Paramakudi. The next avenue of promotion is to the post of Senior Divisional Engineer. While so, the first respondent, by his proceedings, dated 30.09.2011, issued charge memo. Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even though the charge related to the year 1988 – 1989 and 1989 – 1990, nearly after lapse of twenty two years, the first respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and for such undue delay, there was no acceptable explanation given by the first respondent. The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contention, makes reliance upon the following Judgments:-

(i) P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403;

(ii) Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. R.Chakrapani, reported in 2012 (6) CTC 69.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, reiterating averments made in the Vacate Stay Petition, submits that as the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, the first respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.

4. I have considered the above submissions and perused the records carefully.

5. It is not in dispute that the charges relate to the period 1988-1989 and 1989 - 1990. The charge memo to the petitioner was issued, on 30.09.2011, i.e. nearly after lapse of twenty two years. There is no explanation as to why there was such an inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo to the petitioner.

6. In a very recent pronouncement, this Court in W.P.(MD)No.14149 of 2012, dated 05.06.2014, T.Ravindran, Junior Engineer, Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation, Tiruchirappalli Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, on a careful consideration of various Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, quashed the charge memo on the ground that it was issued after lapse of seven years and held as follows:-

7. In the Judgment in M. Elangovan Vs. Trichy District Central Co-operative Bank, reported in2006 (3) MLJ 621, this Court has held as follows:

14. It is in this regard, the judgment of the Apex Court is a guiding factor wherein, the Supreme Court has categorically held that keeping an official under charges and disputing integrity would cause unbearable agony and distress to the officer concerned stating that the protracted disciplinary enquiry against the Government employee should be avoided not only in the interest of the employee but also in the interest of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees. Therefore, the Supreme Court heavily came down against the protracted enquiry and put an end to the said enquiry.

15. The Supreme Court in this regard for the future guidance states as follows:-

"Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher Government official under charges of corruption and dispute integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted discip