Long delays in disciplinary proceedings can lead to their quashing, especially when the charged employee is not at fault, violating principles of administrative justice.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Ms. S. Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer: -

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, issue notice to the 0pp. Parties specifically the O.P no.2 to show cause as to why the disciplinary proceeding initiated on 31.10.2002 shall not be quashed and if the 0pp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Hon'ble Court upon hearing the parties may be further pleased to allow this writ petition by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate in quashing the disciplinary proceeding initiated on 31.10.2002 and thereby directing the O.P no.l & 2 to give promotion to the petitioner to the post of Asst. Executive Engineer and may be further pleased to pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as may be deemed expedient in the interest of justice and for this act of kindness as the petitioner is duty bound shall ever pray..”

3. It is contended that petitioner while continuing as a Jr. Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Binalgada, Section-1, Lahunipada in the district of Sundergarh, the proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 31.10.2002 under Annexure-1. It is contended that on being served with the Memorandum, petitioner vide letter dated 05.12.2002 under annexure-2, requested the disciplinary authority to provide him xerox copies of MB book and xerox copies of final bill so prepared and passed for payment, for enabling him to file his written statement of defence.

3.1. It is contended that on the face of such request made by the petitioner on 05.12.2002 under Annexure-2, no further action was taken in providing the documents nor petitioner was permitted to inspect the same. In absence of the documents being provided, petitioner could not file his written statement of defence.

3.2. It is contended that without providing the documents as prayed for, vide order dated 26.02.2016 under Annexure-3, the disciplinary authority requested the Govt. to appoint BDO, Khairaput as the Marshalling Officer taking into account the appointment of the Executive Engineer, M.I. Division, Jaipur as the Enquiry Officer.

3.3. It is contended that on the face of the said order issued under Annexure-3 when the proceeding was not finalized, petitioner moved an application before Opp. Party No.2 on 30.05.2017 with a request to finalize the proceeding as because of the pendency of the proceeding, petitioner is not getting the benefit of promotion. Similar request was also made by the petitioner vide letter dated 08.11.2023 under Annexure-5.

3.4. It is contended that on being moved under Annexure-4 and 5, vide order dated 15.05.2024, Opp. Party No.2 appointed Superintendent Engineer, M.I. Division, Jaipur as the Enquiry Officer to enquire with the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is contended that on the face of such appointment of the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 15.05.2024, when no further action was taken and petitioner was again deprived to get the benefit of promotion, present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with a prayer to quash the proceeding on the ground of inordinate delay.

3.5. It is contended that since in the proceeding initiated in the year 2002, enquiry has not yet commenced as found from order dated 15.05.2024 under Annexure-6, the proceeding is required to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay as no fault lies with the petitioner. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decisi