Inordinate unexplained delay exceeding 12 years in disciplinary proceedings against retired employee, coupled with procedural lapses, causes serious prejudice and warrants quashing to uphold natural justice.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A))

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

i. Memorandum of Charges issued by Deputy Secretary, under the authority of R1 dated 07.12.2012.

ii. Memorandum No. C-13011/51/2011-Viq issued by the Under Secretary, under the authority of the President of India dated 06.05.2015.

iii. Order No. C-13011/51/2011-Vig issued by the Under Secretary, under the authority of the President of India dated 14.12.2018 conveying tentative disagreement on the Article 1 of the Articles of Charges that was held not proved by the IA and tentatively agreeing with the other charges held to be proved.

iv. Order No. C-13011/51/2011-Vigilance Issued by the Under Secretary, under the authority of the President of India dated 22.06.2018. (Τo be read as 22.06.2020) (Date of the order mentioned wrongly, as it was received by the applicant on 30.06.2020 and issued on the retirement of the previous Inquiry Officer on 31.05.2020); and quash all the above proceedings as illegal and consequentially direct the 1st Respondent to drop all the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant in this regard and allow all the consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances, if any, and arrears of pension and allowances, other pensionary benefits that had been withheld due to the pending disciplinary proceedings; and pass any other order or direction or grant any other relief, in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant, are as follows :-

2.1. The applicant, who has retired on superannuation, on 30.11.2013 from the office of 2^nd respondent while working as Junior Technical Assistant, was falsely implicated in CBI case on the basis of a complaint filed by a third party on the charge of criminal conspiracy and demanding illegal gratification for facilitating registration of the Complainant's Association.

The said case was closed by the learned CBI Court on the basis of a report submitted by the CBI who recorded that there are no sufficient evidence to prove the charge and who recommended for major penalty proceedings against the applicant.

2.2. The 1^st respondent issued a Charge Memo dt. 07.12.2012 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA)Rules, 1965, consisting of three articles of charges, of which the 1^st article of charge i.e., that he sought illegal gratification of money etc, was the same as that of the criminal charge filed in the CBI Court by the CBI, which was eventually closed for "mistake of facts". The 2^nd article of charge was relating to the alleged failure of the applicant for not complying with Rule 15 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in as much as he did not intimate the Ministry about his family members' doing business. The 3^rd article of charge was pertaining to his alleged failure to comply to the requirement of Rule 18 regarding permission/intimation on acquisition of properties.

2.3. The 1^st respondent has been frequently changing the IO and the 2^nd IO who inquired into the charges submitted his report dt. 21.02.2014 gave a finding that the first article of charge is not proved. As regards the second and third articles of charges, he gave a finding that some of them are proved while some others are not proved. The DA, on consideration of the IO's report, gave a memo dt. 06.05.2015 giving his tentative disagreement with the finding of IO in respect of Article 1 that was found to be not proved and accepted the finding in respect of the finding on Articles 2 and 3. As against the memo, the applicant