Disciplinary proceedings mandated by a court to be completed within a specific timeframe must adhere to that timeline; failure to do so requires the authority to seek a formal extension of time from the court to maintain the legality of the proceedings.

1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that previously the disciplinary proceedings were remanded back by this Court by order dated 2.4.2025 passed in Writ-A No.2227 of 2025, Smt. Shaheen Badar Vs. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and others wherein condition no.10(v) provided that the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner would be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The certified copy of the order was received by the respondents on 11.4.2025 and 16.4.2025 and the charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 1.11.2025 and the charge sheet is dated 2.9.2025.

2. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that even the charge sheet has been issued beyond the time prescribed by this Court by order dated 2.4.2025 and as such the disciplinary proceedings after the period of four months is not tenable.

3. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow Vs. Ram Prakash Singh , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891 to submit that once a time line has been provided under the order of a Court, then the respondents can only complete the proceedings within the time frame provided unless an extension of time is sought. In this respect, paragraph 62 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:-

" 62. While affirming the aforesaid view of the Full Bench, we would like to provide clarification on certain points not touched by such bench. First, in view of unseen institutional hurdles that can slow down swift (2005) 12 SCC 355 action, it may not always be possible for the disciplinary authority in each such case where a fixed time has been stipulated by a tribunal/court to conclude the proceedings to apply and seek extension of time before expiry of such time although there can be no gainsaying that applying and obtaining an extension before expiry is eminently desirable. In exceptional cases, even after expiry of the stipulated time, such an application can be moved; and, depending on the cause shown for inability or failure to conclude the proceedings within the time stipulated and also for not applying for extension before expiry, the tribunal/court may, in its discretion, allow or reject the prayer for extension. If the application is rejected, the proceedings cannot be carried forward unless a superior court, reversing the order of rejection, permits the disciplinary authority to so proceed. Secondly, if the delinquent employee objects to continuation of proceedings beyond the time stipulated, the disciplinary authority without proceeding further ought to apply for extension of time and may not go ahead till such time its prayer for extension is granted on such application. Proceeding despite objection and without there being an extension could give rise to apprehensions of bias. Therefore, applying for extension upon halting the proceedings awaiting order on the application would be an advisable course of action to balance the interests of both the employer and the employee. Thirdly, even if the delinquent employee has not objected to continuation of proceedings beyond the time stipulated by the tribunal/court but before the final order is passed in the proceedings, the disciplinary authority would be bound to seek and obtain extension of time. This is for the simple reason that the sanctity of the orders of tribunals/courts cannot be disrespected by errant parties. The dignity of the judicial process would be seriously eroded and there would be nothi