Unexplained delay in initiating departmental proceedings can lead to prejudice against the accused, and mere negligence does not amount to misconduct as defined under disciplinary rules.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rishi Raj learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4 and Mr. R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.

2. Petition has been filed challenging charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023 as well as consequent departmental proceedings. Further prayers are for quashing of the order dated 31.12.2022 initiating departmental proceedings for imposition of major penalty as well as the order dated 23.2.2023 and the charge-sheet dated 26.11.2024.

3. It has been submitted that with regard to an incident which took place in the year 2015, a show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 16.11.2021 which was replied to by him, whereafter by means of order dated 31.12.2022, reference was made to the State Government for initiating departmental proceedings for imposition of major penalty.

4. In pursuance thereof, State Government vide order dated 23.02.2023 granted approval for initiation of departmental proceedings whereafter the charge-sheet dated 24.05.2023 was prepared and was issued to the Enquiry Officer for further issuance to petitioner.

5. It is submitted that however upon receipt of the said charge-sheet, the Enquiry Officer remitted the same to the Disciplinary Authority for making certain amendments in the charge-sheet and it is in pursuance thereof that charge-sheet dated 26.11.2024 terming it to be an amended charge-sheet was issued to petitioner to which he has submitted his reply.

6. The primary gist of challenge to aforesaid proceedings is that the incident pertains to the year 2015 and a charge-sheet has been issued to petitioner for the first time with regard to such an incident after almost nine years in 2024. It is submitted that due to charge-sheet being issued belatedly, prejudice has been caused to petitioner since it would be virtually impossible for him to defend himself by production of any documentary evidence due to passing of nine years.

7. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgements rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and Anr. AIR 1990 SC 1308 as well as in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakrishnan , (1998) 4 SCC 154 as well as P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board , AIR 2006 SC 207 .

8. Learned State Counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of counter affidavit filed and submits that earlier in pursuance of allegations leveled against petitioner, a show cause notice had been issued to him which was withdrawn by the competent authority since it was felt that a proper departmental proceedings should be initiated against him in view of serious allegations.

9. It is submitted that it is in pursuance thereof that a charge-sheet was prepared on 24.05.2023 but upon it being sent to the Enquiry Officer, it was seen that certain relevant aspects had not been incorporated therein due to which a need was felt for correction of anomalies and thereafter the charge-sheet dated 26.11.2024 has been issued to which petitioner has already replied and the departmental proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously.

10. It is submitted that petitioner does not acquire any vested right for quashing of departmental proceedings merely on the basis of certain delay. It is submitted that even otherwise no delay has occurred since the said aspect has already been indicated in the counter affidavit as recorded herein above.

11. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on recor