Delay in disciplinary proceedings without satisfactory explanation vitiates the proceedings and causes undue prejudice to the employee.

R. Mahadevan, J.

1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the charge memo, dated 17.02.2005, issued by the third respondent and for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 herein to fix the seniority of the petitioner in appropriate place above the fourth respondent and promote him for the post of Executive Engineer with all service benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Town Planning Inspector in Dindigul Municipality. Subsequently, he was re-designated as Junior Engineer, with effect from 14.10.1996. As per the Corporation Service Rules, 1996, the post of Assistant Executive Engineer has to be filled up from among the holders of the post of Junior Engineer/Assistant Engineer. However, the claim of the petitioner for promotion was denied on the ground of pendency of charge memo, dated 17.02.2005.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even though the charge related to the year 1997-1998, nearly after lapse of seven years, the third respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and for such undue delay, there was no acceptable explanation given by the third respondent. The learned counsel, in support of his contention, makes reliance upon the following Judgments:-

(i) M. Elangovan vs. Trichy District Central Co-operative Bank, 2006 (3) MLJ 621

(ii) The Secretary to Government vs. N. Ponniah, 2007 WLR 903

(iii) A. Shahul Hameed vs. Special Commissioner, 2007 WLR 601

(iv) Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana & others, 2008 (3) CTC 781

(v) V. Mallika vs. Secretary to Government, 2011 (8) MLJ 256

(vi) K. Deivendran vs. District Collector, Dindigul, 2012 (4) MLJ 576

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, relying on the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, submits that pending charge under Rule 8(2) of the Tiruchirappalli Corporation Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, is a bar for promotion and inasmuch as the petitioner has been facing charges under the Rules, his claim for promotion was not considered.

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

6. It is not in dispute that the charges relate to the period 1997-1998 and 1998-99. The charge memo to the petitioner was issued, on 17.02.2005, i.e. nearly after lapse of seven years. There is no explanation as to why there was such an inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo to the petitioner. It is also pertinent to mention here that the enquiry proceedings were completed in the year 2006 and still no orders have been passed. The explanation given by the third respondent that the suit filed by the contractors against the recovery action initiated against them was decreed and an appeal with delay has been filed and pending is also not satisfactory and unacceptable, because any decision in the civil suit cannot be a deterrent for the disciplinary authority to pass orders in the department proceedings against the delinquent employees and admittedly, the suit is filed by the contractors only against the recovery and whereas the charges against the officials are for unauthorized release of bitumen. Now, it has been 15 years since the incident and 9 years after the charge memo.

7. In the Judgment in M. Elangovan vs. Trichy District Central Co-operative Bank, 2006 (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.