Inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings and absence of witnesses in the charge memo vitiates the proceedings and causes serious prejudice to the delinquent, rendering consequential proceedings and punishment unsustainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorari, calling for the records of the third respondent in Na.Ka.1214/2018 Sa Pa-1 dated 05.09.2019 and quash the same.)

1. The petitioner herein was subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the impugned charge memo dated 05.09.2019, framed under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, which is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. Heard Mr.V.Vijayashankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.H.Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge memo itself is vitiated, since the list of witnesses in the Annexure accompanying the charge memo, was shown as ''Nil''. He further submitted that the charges have been framed, only to deprive promotion to the petitioner, for the post of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He also added that there is a considerable delay in framing of the charges.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that, there is no delay in framing of the charges since the delinquency relates upto the year 2017 and framing of charges in the year 2019, cannot be considered as an ''inordinate'' delay.

5. A perusal of the charge memo would reveal that, the incidents that happened from the year 2014 to 2017 have now been shown as misconducts in the impugned charge memo dated 05.09.2019, which is after about five years. Such an ''inordinate delay'' in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, cannot be sustained in view of various decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court.

6. Likewise, insofar as failure to refer to the list of witnesses in the impugned charge memo is concerned, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570, had held that absence of witnesses in the enquiry, would stand vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings.

7. In a recent decision in the case of R.Venkataraman Vs. The Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai passed in W.P.5567 of 2016 dated 24.01.2023, I had an occasion to deal with both the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, as well as the absence of witnesses in an enquiry, by placing reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

“5. The petitioner''s involvement in the delinquency on 23.08.2004 was known to the respondents Board, since they had placed him under suspension on 16.09.2004, by quoting his involvement in the criminal case. Thereafter, it had taken about more than 5 years for the Disciplinary Authority to frame the charges against the petitioner. All the charges relate to the petitioner''s involvement in the criminal case, which had ended in acquittal.

6. It has been well settled by various decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court, that in cases where there is an inordinate delay in initiating the departmental proceedings, serious prejudice would have caused to the delinquent and therefore, the consequential proceedings and the punishment, cannot be sustained. In the case of M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88, a similar delay of 5 years in initiating the departmental proceedings was held to be fatal to the department. Likewise, in the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 2008 (3) CTC 781, reliance was placed on two decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the delay in initiating the departmental proceedings was held against the department as null and void. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-

"8.We find that the Trial Court decreed the Suit primarily for three reaso