Inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings prejudices the charged officer unless there is a proper explanation for the delay.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to impugned charge memo in his proceeding in Na.Ka.1336/2021/A (2) dated 11.07.2022 and quash the same.)

The charge memo dated 11.07.2022, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, alleging that the petitioner, while serving as a Senior Inspector / Supervisor had failed to take action against one Chellammal for having taken loans by submitting forged document, is put under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident for which the charge memo was levelled relates to the year 2002, when the petitioner was not the Senior Inspector / Supervisor, since he had been in the post only between 25.10.2004 and 14.07.2006. He further submitted that the delay in initiating the departmental action has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents herein submitted that in an inquiry conducted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, a recommendation was made for initiation of departmental proceedings and therefore, the present impugned charges have been levelled against him. He further submitted that if at all the petitioner has any valid defense, it would be open to him to participate in the inquiry and therefore, the charge memo should not be interfered with.

4. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel.

5. In connection with the incident for which the charges has been levelled, an inquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 was already initiated and by a report dated 05.08.2008, all further proceedings therein was dropped, by holding that there was no shortage or misappropriation of funds. However, in the said report dated 05.08.2008, there was a recommendation for initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner.

6. The impugned charge memo is liable to be interfered with on the ground of delay in initiation of the proceedings. Admittedly, the delinquency relates to the year 2002, for which an inquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 was also held. Through the report dated 05.08.2008, a recommendation was made for initiation of departmental inquiry, against the petitioner. However, no further proceedings was conducted and after a long slumber of 14 years, the present charges have been framed. There is absolutely no explanation either in the charge memo or in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent as to why the departmental action was not taken within a reasonable time.

7. Curiously, the counter affidavit of the second respondent states that since there is no time limit fixed for framing of charges under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955, there is no bar. The Hon''ble Supreme Court as well as this Court in various decisions have condoned the delay in initiation proceedings, as well as the conclusion there of, by the disciplinary authorities.

8. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 738, the Supreme Court had come down heavily against the laches on the part of the employer in conducting departmental enquiry and after finding out that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, held that it would be unfair to order departmental enquiry to proceed further.

9. In State of A.P., Vs. N.Radhakrishnan reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 19, held as follows:    "Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanatio