Delay alone cannot be a ground to set aside disciplinary proceedings, especially when serious allegations of misconduct are made.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has challenged the charge sheet, Annexure P-1, dated 8.7.2003. It is challenged on the ground that the allegation of the charge sheet pertains to the year 1985, when the petitioner passed an order on 13.4.1985 while working as Tahsildar.

A charge sheet is issued after 18 years and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside on the ground of inordinate delay. In addition, it is stated that against the order passed by the petitioner dated 30.4.1985 the revisional authority in exercise of its suo motu powers passed the order dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure R-2), whereby the petitioner's order was set aside. Against this order dated 24.10.2000, the non-applicants of Case No. 111/97/98/suo motu revision, have filed second revision before the Board of Revenue, which is pending and there is an interim order prevailing and, therefore, this order Annexure R-2 cannot be pressed into service nor can be a reason for issuance of charge sheet against the petitioner. Lastly, it is stated that as per circular of the State Government, Annexure P-4, dated 3.4.1996, action against the employee can be taken by way of disciplinary action only after the decision in the revision. Shri D.S. 1] (State of MP vs. Chamanlal Goyal).

2. Per Contra, Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate, supported the charge sheet and submits that at this stage no interference is warranted by this Court. She further submits that in the revisional order dated 24.10.2000 there is a finding by the revisional court that the petitioner has not conducted proper enquiry and made an effort to give improper benefits to the non-applicants therein. Thereafter, the charge sheet is issued on 8.7.2003. The allegations against the petitioner are very serious and include the allegation of acting with ulterior motive to give benefit to Shripad and Amar singh. Thus, it is not a case of merely passing a wrong order but a case which contains an allegation of passing wrong order with oblique motive. Lastly, she relied on the judgment in the case of Union of India and others Vs. K.K.Dhawan, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 56.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet solely on the ground of delay. Additional ground is that against the revisional order the matter is pending before the Board of Revenue. The pivotal question is whether a charge sheet can be set aside merely on the ground of delay. In my opinion, this question is no more res Integra. In catena of judgments the Apex Court held that inordinate delay is a ground on which interference can be made. For this also the employee has to show the prejudice caused to him. However, in cases where allegations are very grave, the charge sheet cannot be quashed mechanically on the ground of delay. It is apt to quote recent judgment of Supreme Court in (2012) 11 SCC 565 (Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha). The Apex Court after taking stock of earlier judgments of Supreme Court opined as under:-

"Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that the same had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/ tribunal may quash the chargesheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings."

(Emphasis Supplied)

A bare perusal of this judgment shows that gravity of charge is one rele