Inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings does not vitiate them if explained by CBI investigation without proven prejudice to the officer.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr.B.Anand, Member (A):

By way of filing this Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-

“a. Call for the records connected with the case;

b. Quash the impugned order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Respondent.

c. Quash the entire disciplinary proceedings/inquiry initiated against the Applicant, including Charge Memorandum dated 27.06.2023 and/or any other incidental/consequential proceedings thereto.

d. Pass any other order(s) this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief factual matrix of the case as could be gleaned from the records is that the applicant is an officer of the Indian Civil Accounts Service (ICAS) of the 2001 batch, who over the years, has held several important assignments and is presently serving as the Chief Controller of Accounts in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi.

3. During the period from October 2013 to May 2015, the applicant while posted as Deputy Controller General of Accounts (Examination) in the Office of the Controller General of Accounts, was alleged to be responsible for certain irregularities in the conduct of the Assistant Accounts Officer (Civil) Examinations which were conducted in the years 2013 and 2014. The respondents state that the preliminary enquiry conducted by them had established the involvement of the applicant in these alleged irregularities/malpractices.

4. Accordingly, the applicant was first apprised of the alleged irregularities through a Show Cause Notice (SCN)/Memorandum dated 28.03.2016 issued by the respondents and directed the applicant to submit her explanation. The applicant submitted a detailed explanation dated 11.04.2016 denying the allegations and explaining that the matters referred to in the memorandum did not fall within the scope of her duties as Deputy Controller General of Accounts (Examination). Thereafter, no departmental proceedings or inquiry were initiated by the respondents pursuant to the said memorandum.

5. In the interregnum, the applicant continued to discharge her duties in the service of the Government of India and was subsequently promoted to the post of Chief Controller of Accounts in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, New Delhi, vide promotion order dated 18.06.2021. The promotion was granted in the normal course as there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against her.

6. However, after a prolonged lapse of time reckoned from 11.04.2016 when the applicant had offered her detailed explanation to the SCN, the respondents issued a Charge Memorandum dated 27.06.2023 to the applicant in respect of the same alleged irregularities pertaining to the AAO (Civil) Examinations conducted in the years 2013 and 2014. The applicant submitted her written statement of defence dated 07.07.2023 denying the allegations and specifically pointing out that the charge memorandum had been issued after an inordinate delay of nearly a decade from the date of the alleged events.

7. Despite the submission of the defence by the applicant, the respondents proceeded to appoint an Inquiry Officer vide order dated 22.11.2024 for conducting departmental inquiry against the applicant.

8. Aggrieved by the initiation of disciplinary proceedings after an inordinate delay of approximately eleven (11) years from the date of the alleged irregularities and by