Inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings can lead to quashing if it causes prejudice to the employee, emphasizing the necessity for timely resolution.

ORDER :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. Addl. Affidavit filed by the petitioner and instruction provided by the learned State Counsel be kept in record.

3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

Therefore, the petitioner, most respectfully prays, that this Hon’ble Court shall graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Petition, issue Rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to:-

i) why the Departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure-1 shall not be quashed for inordinate delay of Fourteen years and

ii) why the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to regularize the period of leave of the petitioner applied vide Annexure-4 as due and admissible and revise her pay under ORSP Rule-2017 and release arrears thereof in her favour within a time to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court."

4. It is contended that vide order under Annexure-1 though a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the Opposite Party No.2 and the petitioner also filed his written statement of defence on 24.08.2009, but till date the proceeding is yet to be finalized and thereby causing prejudice to the petitioner.

5. Though in the instant case, this Court was of the view that basing on Annexure-1, the Inspector is to initiate the proceeding, but learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on instruction contended that Annexure-1 is itself initiation of the proceeding and Inspector of School was only directed to serve the charge on the petitioner.

6. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly contended that the proceeding is pending since 2009 and the petitioner has no role for non-disposal of the proceeding as on date. The proceeding is therefore liable to be quashed, because of such inordinate delay in its disposal. In support of his submission, Mr. Tripathy relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. N. Radhakishan , reported in AIR 1998 SC 1833 . Hon’ble Apex Court in para-19 and 20 of the said order 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 of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an o