Delays in disciplinary proceedings render outcomes unsustainable due to violation of statutory guidelines.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)

By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief:-

“(i) quash and set aside the charge-sheet dated 30.01.2004 (Annexure A-1) as the same could not be completed till date;

(ii) direct the respondents to release final pension and other consequential benefits like benefit of BCR (Biennial Cadre Review) along with the interest on arrears @12% p.a.;

(iii) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant commences his arguments by drawing our attention to the following charges levelled against the applicant:-

“That the said Shri Om Prakash Sharma functioning as P/A Ghaziabad HO received 16 demand drafts from Kaushambi and Mukandnagar post offices got issued by the M/s Escorts India Ltd. Faridabad, through the M/s Abhishek Enterprises. M/s Abhishek Enterprises used fake franking dye and it succeeded to procure these DDs fraudulently from M/s Escorts India Ltd. The said Shri Om Prakash Sharma connived with the staffers of M/s Abhishek Enterprises and cleared all these DDS amounts to rupees 1459657/- this action of Shri Om Prakash Sharma caused the loss of the said amount to the department.

Committing this offence, the said Shri Om Prakash Sharma violated rule 113 of the FHB Vol I and simultaneously he violated the rule 3(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that this is the 3rd round of litigation and in the 1st round of litigation, by way of filing OA No. 1047/2007, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 03.07.2007, directed the respondents to supply the documents mentioned in the charge-memo to the applicant as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order before proceeding further with the inquiry. There was a second round of litigation in OA No. 3944/2011, wherein this Tribunal vide order dated 19.12.2013 in para 2 had made the following observations and stated that the OA has become infructuous and disposed of the same:-

“2. It is seen from the records that on 04.11.2011, this Tribunal stayed further proceedings in the inquiry as prayed for by the Applicant. Thereafter, the respondents have filed the reply to this Original Application on 25.09.2012. Meanwhile, the applicant has retired on superannuation on 31.12.2011. According to the applicant’s counsel, he has also been granting provisional pension from 01.01.2012. In the changed scenario the only option available to the respondents is to proceed against the applicant under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, if so advised.”

4. On the basis of these OAs, the respondents vide order dated 23.06.2014 had appointed the IO and PO.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to the order dated 19.11.2014, which reads as under:-

“ So, the prosecution side is hereby instructed once again that be passed apparent order that even after order passed by the hon’ble CAT New Delhi in OA No. 1047/2007, conceding final judgment of F-62/2003-04 dated 09.02.2007 in subject of additional records, further inquiry proceedings be initiated and it be treated that the records cannot be supplied. Inquiry proceedings shall be initiated and it be treated that the records cannot be supplied. Inquiry proceedings shall be initiated on the next date i.e. on 16.12.14 at 10.00 O Clock in the main post office. In addition to it, anybody shall not be informed separately. All concerned be ensured to appear on above noted date.”

6. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew our attention to the fact that the said PO d