Unexplained delays in disciplinary proceedings cause prejudice to the charged officer, warranting termination of such proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State-respondents.

2. Present petition has been seeking following relief :

''I. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and commanding, directing to the respondent No. 2 to pay arrears of salary and allowances payable to the petitioner and also to pay him his all the retiral benefits accordance with the rules and regulations.

II. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus and commanding, directing to continuance of disciplinary proceeding after his retirement, made an application dated 21.4.2024 before respondent No. 2 for retiral benefits to the petitioner.''

3. Case was heard on 24.9.2024 and Court has passed following order :

''The petitioner was a Gram Panchayat Adhikari and was scheduled to retire on 31.12.2009, that is to say the date he would superannuate peacefully. The petitioner was suspended pending inquiry on 29.12.2009, two days before his scheduled retirement. He was served with a copy of the charge-sheet also on the said date. The contention of the petitioner is that till date neither the disciplinary proceedings have proceeded or concluded nor the petitioner paid a penny of his post retiral benefits.

Let the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ghazipur show-cause by his own affidavit on or before 1.10.2024, why disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have not been concluded during the past 15 years and why on the ground of this inordinate delay alone, the proceedings be not quashed.

Lay as fresh on 1.10.2024.

Let this order be communicated to the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Ghazipur through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur by the Registrar (Compliance) within 24 hours.''

4. In personal affidavit dated 30.9.2024 filed by respondent No. 2, there is no explanation as to why inquiry has not been completed even after 15 years from the date of service of charge-sheet. It is also stated in the affidavit that in compliance of order dated 25.7.2012 passed in Writ-A 35799 of 2012, almost entire provisional pension as well as GPF has been paid to the petitioner, but inquiry has yet not been completed.

5. The issue of delay in departmental proceeding was before the Apex Court in the matter of State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan; (1998) 4 SCC 154, in which Court has held that 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 explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Relevant paragraph No. 19 is being quoted below :

''19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined 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 the relevant factors and to balance and weigh 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 the 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 the 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 the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic princ