Inordinate delay in initiating and completing disciplinary proceedings can cause prejudice to the delinquent and vitiate the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the first respondent issued in G.O. (D) No.224 MAWS Department dated 26.04.2013 and to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to release the DCRG amount of Rs.2,69,825/-, within a reasonable period as fixed by this Court.)

For an incident that occurred in the year 1993/1994 at Erode Municipality, while the petitioner was serving as a Junior Engineer, a charge memo dated 19.08.2002 was issued, alleging certain irregularities and misappropriation, causing loss to the Government. Not being satisfied with the petitioner's explanation to the charges, an inquiry was conducted, whereby the charges were held to be proved through an inquiry report dated 16.07.2004. The inquiry report was communicated to the petitioner on 29.09.2006. Though the petitioner had submitted his further explanation on 23.11.2006 itself, no final decision was taken, which prompted him to file Writ Petition in W.P.Nos.4520 and 4521 of 2010, whereby this Court, by an order dated 09.04.2010, directed the Disciplinary Authority to complete the disciplinary proceedings, within six months from the date of the order. However, without adhering to the time limit fixed by this Court, the proceedings were kept pending for a considerable time and ultimately on 26.04.2013, the impugned order of punishment, imposing a penalty of recovery of Rs.500/- per month from the petitioner's pension for a period of three years, together with recovery of a sum of Rs.2,69,825/- from the DCRG amount. The said impugned order is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. Heard Mr.T.Ranganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The main ground raised by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that, there was an inordinate delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, as well as in concluding the same.

4. Admittedly, the present disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner relates to an incident that had occurred in the year 1993. The charge memo was issued on 19.08.2002 to which the petitioner was permitted to peruse the records on 08.04.2003 and consequently submitted his defence statement on 23.05.2003. After more than 9 months, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who claims to have filed his report on 16.07.2004. However, the inquiry report came to be communicated to the petitioner after more than two years on 29.09.2006, to which the petitioner had submitted his further explanation on 23.11.2006. His explanation was kept in cold storage for more than four years, in view of which, he had filed Writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.4520 & 4521 of 2010, seeking to quash the disciplinary proceedings. This Court by its order dated 09.04.2010, had directed the Disciplinary Authority to complete the enquiry proceedings, within a period of six months from the date of the order. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority was required to complete the proceedings on or before 08.10.2010. However, the order of this Court was totally disregarded. In the meantime, the respondents had permitted the petitioner to retire from services through an order dated 24.02.2011, without prejudice to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, on 26.04.2013, which is after about 6 ½ years from the date on which the petitioner had submitted his further explanation, the impugned order of penalty came to be passed. On on overall view, in the manner in which the Disciplinary Authority had initiated the action against the petitioner and concluded the same, there is an inordinate delay, which could have caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

5. In this regard, a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Kootha Pillai Vs. The Commissioner, Mu