O R D E R

The short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order passed beyond the time lines/period fixed by this Court to complete the disciplinary proceedings would prove fatal to the validity of the order and render the proceedings bad in law.

2. The petitioner who was working as a Sub-Treasury Officer, Cuddalore was issued a charge memo on 24.01.2002 inter alia alleging lapses in payment of Military pension. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge memo vide letter dated 19.04.2002 which was forwarded to the enquiry officer. There was considerable delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1361 of 2004, praying for a direction to the respondents to expeditiously dispose of the disciplinary proceedings. The tribunal was pleased to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose the enquiry and pass final orders as early as possible. However, despite the above direction the disciplinary proceedings were kept pending, the petitioner filed Writ Petition in W.P.No.26729 and 26730 of 2004 before this Court, praying for a direction to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge memo dated 24.01.2002. This Court was pleased to direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In other words in terms of the orders of this Court, the disciplinary proceedings ought to be concluded on or before 20.11.2004. Pursuant to that a letter dated 02.11.2004 was issued to the petitioner calling for explanation to the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply to the enquiry report on 01.12.2004. Thereafter, on 30.10.2008 the petitioner was allowed to retire pending disciplinary proceedings and the impugned order came to be passed finally on 13.10.2009, which is almost 5 years from the date of receipt of order of this Court in W.P.No.26729 and 26730 of 2004, wherein direction was issued to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months.

3. To a pointed question as to whether they have obtained any extension of time inasmuch this Court vide order dt.20.09.2004 had specifically directed conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within a period of 2 months thereon. It was submitted by the Counsel for the respondent that no such direction nor any petition seeking extension of time was filed. The impugned order having been passed 5 years thereafter, will be in gross violation of the said direction.

4. Without examining the merits of the case this Court is of the view that failure on the part of the respondents to comply with the directions of this Court itself would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings and render the same bad in law and liable to set aside.

5. In this regard it may be relevant to refer to the decision in Dr.N.Shahida Begum v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2006) 2 MLJ 143 wherein it has been held that once this Court issues directions for completion of proceedings or performance of act within a particular time line failure to comply with such direction would be fatal to the very validity of the proceeding/order. It may be relevant to refer to the following passages in the said order :

“ Hence, he was constrained to file W.P. No. 1247 of

1996 and this Court granted time to complete the enquiry within three months, which was not complied with. Thereafter, time was extended to pass a final order on the ground that enquiry shall be completed within one month. Even then no orders were passed and the second Enquiry Officer was appointed and when further time was prayed, this Court has refused to grant the same. Therefore, when once the Court has refused to extend the time for completion of enquiry, the petitioner filed the contempt petition for non-compliance of the order dated 26.11.1997 passed in the miscellaneous petition filed in W.P. No. 1247 of 1996. The learned Judge, while clo