IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to avoid inordinate delays in disciplinary proceedings, the serious prejudice and mental distress caused by such delays, and the court's authority to quash charge memos and direct appropriate relief for the affected party.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned charge memo issued by the 2nd respondent in T1(2).Tha.Pa.No.109/2020 dated 20.10.2020 and quash the same.)

1. Heard Mr. S. Harshavardhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

2. Through a charge memo dated 20.10.2020, two charges came to be framed against the petitioner herein under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The first charge against the petitioner is that, on 20.04.2019, while he was serving as an Assistant Commissioner of Police, he was not present in the room in which the ballot boxes were kept for the 194 Madurai West Parliament Election, when the Tahsildar of the Excise Department and others entered the storage room, and further that he had failed to give suitable instructions to the Police personnel on duty in this regard and thereby violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. The second charge is that he had failed to stop the Tahsildar of the Excise Department and others from entering the storage room where the ballot boxes were kept and stop them from taking certain copies of the documents. This charge memo is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is an inordinate delay in initiation and completion of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b) and therefore, the charge memo is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay and laches.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader, however, submitted that the delay is not inordinate and since the Enquiry Officer had also conducted a full fledged enquiry and held the charges against the petitioner as proved and further opportunity was also given to the petitioner for rendering his objections to the enquiry report, there is no infirmity in the enquiry proceedings.

5. The delinquency stated in the charge memo relates to an incident that had occurred on 20.04.2019. The charges, however, came to be framed on 20.10.2020, after about 18 months. There is absolutely no explanation as to why this inordinate delay had occurred for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents have not filed their counter affidavit, explaining the delay. Apart from the delay in initiation of the proceedings, the enquiry seems to have been continued for almost three years, without passing any final orders. In the meantime, the petitioner had also attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2022, on which date, the Government had passed G.O.(2D) No.193, Home (Police.2) Department, permitting him to retire from service on 31.05.2022 and for continuance of the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

6. The delay in initiation, as well as conclusion, of the disciplinary proceedings, have been subject of challenge before this Court and in various orders passed, such a delay was frowned upon. Some of the decisions are referred hereunder:-

“1. In the case of Union of India v. CAT reported in 2005 (2) CTC 169 (DB), this Court held that,

"The delay remains totally unexplained. Therefore, we have no hesitation at all in concluding that the ground of inordinate delay in proceeding with the departmental enquiry as referred to above by us, would come in the way of the Govt., to continue with the enquiry any further.............."

2. In P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, this Court after referring to various decisions, held that,

"The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore be avoided not only in the interest of the government employee but in public interests 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