$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 27.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 2793/2026, CM APPL. 13529/2026, CM APPL.

13530/2026 and CM APPL. 13531/2026 STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Azmat Hayat Amanullah, ASC along with Ms. Rebecca Mishra, Advocate and Ms.

Vanshita Gupta, Advs.

versus RAKESH KUMAR DUBEY & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth with Mr. Harshit Manwani, Ms. Himanshi Girdhar and Mr. Deepanshu Grover, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN J U D G M E N T (ORAL) ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. By way of the present Petition, the Petitioner assails the correctness of the order dated 17.10.2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’] in M.A. No. 544/2024 in O.A. No.3143/2022.

2. By the Impugned Order, the Tribunal dismissed the application preferred by the present Petitioner-Employer seeking extension of time for completion of the pending disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.1.

3. The limited issue which arises for consideration in the present petition is whether, in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, the Tribunal was justified in declining further extension of time for completion of the disciplinary inquiry.

FACTUAL BAKGROUND

4. The factual background, to the extent relevant for adjudication of the present petition, is not in serious dispute.

5. Respondent No.1, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Superintendent of Police. Articles of Charges were framed against him alleging that he had facilitated illegal sand mining and its transportation. Disciplinary proceedings were accordingly initiated against Respondent No.1.

6. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Respondent No.1 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3143/2022, inter alia challenging the non-supply of certain documents in the course of the disciplinary inquiry. In the said Original Application, the Tribunal, vide order dated 10.11.2022, stayed further proceedings in the disciplinary inquiry. The said stay continued to operate until it was vacated on 15.12.2023.

7. Thereafter, the Tribunal disposed of the Original Application vide order dated 09.02.2024, while directing the Petitioner to ensure culmination of the disciplinary proceedings preferably within a period of three months.

8. In view of the said direction, the Petitioner filed an application on 02.08.2024 seeking extension of time by six months for completion of the inquiry. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 04.10.2024.However, while granting extension, the Tribunal directed that the extended period of six months would commence from 10.05.2024. As a consequence, the effective time available to the Petitioner for conclusion of the inquiry stood drastically curtailed, and the Petitioner was left with only 38 days to conclude the proceedings.

9. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved another application seeking further extension of six months for completion of the disciplinary proceedings. The said application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal by way of the Impugned Order dated 17.10.2025.

10. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

11. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that sincere and bona fide efforts are being undertaken to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in right earnest and that there is no intention on the part of the Petitioner to unduly delay the inquiry. It is further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings remained stayed for a period exceeding one year on account of the interim order passed by the Tribunal in the Original Application filed by Respondent No.1.

12. Learned counsel submits that once the stay was vacated, steps were initiated to proceed with the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer has been directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously. I