Disciplinary proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time; inordinate and unexplained delay in re-initiating proceedings after an appellate order vitiates the proceedings.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records connected with the proceedings in No.1/38926/2023 dated 07.11.2023 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to treat the period of non employment period as duty of 1516 days from 30.10.2012 to 25.03.2016 for all purposes.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner joined as Watchman in the second respondent department. While the petitioner was working as Watchman at Government Vigilance Home, Mylapore, a charge memo dated 24.05.2002 was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of the said office alleging that the petitioner did not leave the workplace even after office hours; consumed alcohol or used intoxicated substance during the duty period; in the intoxicated mood misbehaved with the inmate. The petitioner gave his reply on 19.06.2002.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted detailed enquiry and forwarded her report to the appointing authority holding that the first charge is proved; the second charge is not proved; there is no clarity in respect of the third charge. Thereafter, the appointing authority/ second respondent passed the order of compulsory retirement as punishment on 18.01.2012 and forwarded the same to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for their opinion. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order dated 18.01.2012 before the first respondent and the first respondent vide order dated 03.02.2016 set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and directed the second respondent to proceed with enquiry. TNPSC also gave its opinion that the order passed against the petitioner is not in order.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was reinstated in service with effect from 25.02.2015. Thereafter the petitioner made representation seeking to to treat the non employment period from 30.10.2012 to 25.03.2016 as duty period for all purposes, however, no order was passed and hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.28536 of 2022 and pursuant to the order of this Court dated 07.11.2022 made in the said writ petition, the impugned proceedings was issued by the second respondent.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the alleged occurrence is of the year 2002, however, Enquiry Officer gave his findings on 21.02.2003 and the petitioner gave additional explanation on 29.07.2004, thereafter punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 18.01.2012 and the petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before the first respondent and the first respondent vide order dated 03.02.2016 set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service, however, inorder to wreck vengeance, the present impugned order has been passed. There is no proper explanation for the delay in sending the proposal for TNPSC view and for not taking action till the year 2023 and the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings itself is a ground for vitiating the charge memo and enquiry report.

6.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that while the petitioner was working as Watchman at Government Vigilance Home, Mylapore, a complaint was raised against the petitioner by one of the inmate alleging harassment, based on which, a charge memo dated 24.05.2002 was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent. Thereafter Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted report to the second respondent on 21.02.2003 and the report indicated that out of three charges, charge nos.1 and 3 were established, while charge no.2 was found to be not proved. Thereafter, vide order dated 18.01.2012, punishment of compulsory retirement w