2025:MHC:2736 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R .SAKTHIVEL W.A.No.2147 of 2022 and CMP.No.16008 of 2022

1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Service Wing, Service 2(1) Section, Fort St. George, Chennai-9

2.The Sub-Collector, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District ... Appellants Vs.

M.D.Krishnamurthy ... Respondent PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 01.10.2021 made in W.P.No.30753 of 2018.

For Appellants : Mr.UM.Ravi Chandran State Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.R.Dhinesh Kumar

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)

This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order dated

01.10.2021 made in W.P.No.30753 of 2018.

2. For the delinquency that arose in the year 2006, charges came to be framed against the respondent herein on 08.02.2011. The respondent herein was due to retire on 31.08.2012. However, the disciplinary proceedings did not conclude by then. After a long delay of about seven years, the proceedings concluded and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on 05.10.2018.

3. The learned State Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that the charges against the respondent herein are very serious in nature, and since due opportunity was extended to him by the Enquiry Officer and the proceedings were also conducted in a fair and proper manner, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the order of punishment.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is an inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, as well as conclusion of the same, and in view of the law laid down by the Constitutional Courts, holding such delay to be fatal against the Management, he sought for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.

5. Admittedly, the delinquency recorded against the respondent herein had occurred in the year 2006. When the respondent was due to retire on 31.08.2012, the charges came to be framed on 08.02.2011, after lapse of about five years. No reasonable explanation has been given as to why the appellants had waited over six years to frame the charges, more particularly, when the respondent was due to retire on 31.08.2012. This apart, there is no explanation as to why the disciplinary proceedings continued for more than 7 ½ years. It is not the case of the appellants that such a delay in concluding the proceedings was due to the delinquent officer.

6. In G.O.(Ms).111, Human Resources Management (N)

Department, dated 11.10.2021, the Government had ordered that, in order to avoid suspension on the date of retirement, a decision should be taken in the disciplinary proceedings well in advance, at least three months prior to the date of retirement. The Government Order further stipulates that any failure on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to issue such final orders within the said period would warrant initiation of severe action against the officials responsible for dragging the proceedings up to the date of retirement of the Government servant.

7.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this Court has repeatedly expressed concern over delays on the part of the Disciplinary Authorities in framing charges, as well as in concluding disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable period. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bam Singh and another, reported in [1990 (Supp) SCC 738], the Supreme Court had come down heavily against the laches on the part of the employer in conducting departmental enquiry and after finding out that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, held that it would be unfair to order departmental enquiry to proceed further.

8.In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N.Radhakrishnan reported in [1998 (4) SCC 154], the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 19, held as follows:

“Normally, disciplinary p