Delay in disciplinary proceedings without justification violates principles of administrative justice, warranting quashing of proceedings.

Judgment :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. L. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice, Rule NISI in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/writs as deem fit and proper, quash the Departmental proceeding No.17/Engg./05-0484/2012-18706 dtd.7.11.2012 vide Annexure-2 and further be pleased to released all service benefits.”

3. It is contended that petitioner while continuing in service, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 07.11.2012 under Annexure-2. Even though petitioner duly filed his written statement of defence and participated in the proceeding but the same when was not disposed of for a pretty long period and thereby causing prejudice to him, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4999 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 22.02.2022 under Annexure-5 while disposing the Writ Petition, directed O.P. No.1-State to take necessary steps for disposal of the proceeding without any further delay.

3.1. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court on 22.02.2022, when the proceeding was not finalized, petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30133 of 2022. This Court vide order 15.11.2022 while disposing the Writ Petition, directed the O.P. No.1 to dispose of the proceeding within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of production of copy of the order.

3.2. It is contended that on the face of such further order passed by this Court on 15.11.2022, the proceeding since was not disposed of within the time stipulated, the present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. It is contended that taking into account the nature of charge framed in the proceeding and its initiation vide Memorandum dtd. 07.11.2012, the proceeding since has not been disposed of as yet, the same is liable to be quashed in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. N. Radhakishan , reported in AIR 1998 SC 1833, so followed by this Court in its order dtd.16.01.2023 in W.P.C(OAS) No.68 of 2017 ( Pramod Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Odisha and Others ) and W.P.C(OAC) No.3712 of 2016 disposed of on 6.09.2022 ( Gangadhar Routray Vs. State of Odisha and Others ).

3.3. Hon’ble Court in the case of N. Radhakishan in Para-19 & 20 has held as follows:-

“19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face