Prolonged delays in disciplinary proceedings can undermine their validity, especially if an employee has been promoted despite alleged misconduct.

ORDER :

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the show cause notice dated 21.10.2011 and also the charge sheet dated 13.07.2016 issued by the respondent no.1 and also prayed for a direction to release the retiral dues of the petitioner.

2. That petitioner was initially appointed as Sales Tax Officer through the examination conducted by the Respondent No. 3. Thereafter, he has been promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner and worked from 11.05.1999 to 29.07.2006 at the Zonal Office-2, Indore.

3. On 21.10.2011, respondents issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner stating, why three annual increment with cumulative effect should not be stopped. The aforesaid show cause notice issued by the respondents related to the 5 to 6 years old incident and therefore, petitioner was unable to submit reply on the basis of the memory and therefore, demanded the document and information from the respondent. On the basis of some of the information, petitioner submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice.

4. Even till 2016 respondents were unable to supply the information related with the above Show Cause Notice and therefore, the Commissioner at that time given opinion in petitioner’s favour for closure of the aforesaid show cause notice against him. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 07.04.2018 for personal, hearing in the case and also requested for quashment of the said show cause notice but no action was taken by the respondent thereon.

5. Due to the pendency of the said show cause notice the respondent during the year 2012 to 2014 has not considered petitioner in the DPC for promotion from Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner and his report kept in the sealed envelope on the wrong ground that a Departmental Enquiry was pending against him. The petitioner asked the information under right to information from the respondent regarding any pendency of the Departmental Enquiry in the year 2012, 2013, and 2014. In response to that on 07.05.2014 the respondents supplied the information that no such departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner submitted a representation which were accepted by the respondents and promoted him to the post of Deputy Commissioner by order dated 21/05/2015, wherein, the petitioner was entitled for the said promotion from the year 2010 itself.

6. The respondents without supplying the information with regard to the Show Cause Notice of the year 2011 again issued on the similar ground a show cause notice dated 13.07.2016 to the petitioner. Petitioner again demanded the documents related to the said show cause notice. As per the available information petitioner submitted a reply on 07.04.2018 to the respondents denying the allegation against him.

7. In the year 2020, Divisional Deputy Commissioner Division-2 supplied requisite information in regard to the above show cause notice that were available for replying to the show cause notices. After obtaining the said information from the respondents, on 01.06.2020 petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice denying each and every allegation against him regarding any financial loss caused by him to the respondents.

8. The respondents after the superannuation on 26.06.2020 appointed the enquiry officer in his Departmental Enquiry by order dated 29.07.2020 just to harass the petitioner and created a ground for withholding his all retiral benefit. On 29/6/2020 petitioner wrote letter to the respondents to requesting t