Timeliness and adherence to rules in disciplinary proceedings are critical; undue delays can lead to quashing of charge sheets.

ORDER

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Shri Satya Prakash Rai, counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

2. By way of the instant O.A. the applicant has challenged the order charge sheet dated 09.12.2020 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):

-

“8.1. to allow the present application;

8.2. to quash and set aside Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 09.12.20200 [Annexure : A-1] issued to the Applicant as being bad in law;

Or, alternatively;

8.3. to declare that the Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 09.12.2020 [Annexure: A-1] issued to the Applicant has lapsed;

8.4. to grant all consequential benefits to the Applicant as permissible in law;

8.5. to direct the Respondents to pay suitable compensation to the Applicant as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case;

8.6. to issue any such and further order/directions this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and

8.7. to allow exemplary cost of the application.”

3. The facts of case, as per pleadings in O.A., are that the applicant while working as Deputy Commissioner was suspended firstly vide order dated 11.05.2018 as he was arrested, which was extended on 23.07.2018, 22.01.2019, 22.07.2019 and finally on 13.01.2021 for a period of 180 days each. Shri Sandeep Yadav, a batch mate of the applicant challenged the extension of suspension order before the C.A.T., Cuttack Bench and the Tribunal vide Order dated 31.01.2020 quashed the suspension of applicant beyond the ninety days. The respondents challenged the Order of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa and the Hon’ble High Court vide Order dated 31.07.2020 upholds the Order of the Tribunal to the extent that the suspension is quashed w.e.f. 24.07.2019. The applicant along with few others were served with a charge memo dated 09.12.2020 leveling four charges against him alleging misconduct and misbehavior committed by him. Thereafter, on 18.01.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P. filed by the respondents against the Order dated 31.07.2020 of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa. The applicant submitted his comprehensive reply on 03.02.2021 to the aforesaid charge memo. However, the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 03.06.2021 without considering the aforesaid reply, given by the applicant. The suspension order was revoked by order dated 06.07.2021. Thereafter, on 30.07.2021 preliminary inquiry and on 18.11.2021 second inquiry was held in the disciplinary proceedings.

4. The applicant has challenged the impugned charge memo dated 09.12.2020 on the ground that the allegations pertain to April, 2018 and the charge sheet has been issued more than two years and half years later without showing any reason. The another ground of challenge is that the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 03.06.2021 without considering the reply dated 03.02.2021, given by the applicant. The applicant has claimed that the disciplinary proceeding, due to lapse of a long period, has been lapsed. It is also alleged that more than three years and two months have been passed, however, disciplinary proceeding has not moved an inch on account of non-availability of relied upon documents to the charge sheet. The respondents have not been able to present the prosecution documents for inspection by the applicant. The first stage advice and second stage advice of the Central Vigilance Commission have not been supplied to the applicant. The Inquiry Officer along with Presenting Office