Inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating or concluding disciplinary proceedings against a government employee causes undue prejudice and mental agony, justifying the quashing of such proceedings to ensure justice.

Prayer :

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 2nd Respondent pertaining to the impugned Memorandum bearing ROC No.16858/2016 dated/VI-6 and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to retire in light of his attaining age of superannuation on 30.04.2024 by granting all retirement and pension benefits.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Adithyaraj

For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Selvaraj,

Additional Government Pleader

for RR-1 & 2

Mr.D.Ferdinand for R-3

ORDER

Aggrieved by the charge memo dated 26.05.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as Assistant Engineer (Planning) in Coimbatore Corporation, he was issued with charge memo dated 25.06.2021 by the 2nd respondent under Rule 8(2) of the Coimbatore City Corporation Services (Discipline and appeal) Rules, 1986 on alleging that he had failed to take any follow up action against the lock and seal notices issued to 3 buildings and to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty thereby violated Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973 . Though the petitioner had attained superannuation on 30.04.2014, till date and the charge memo was issued way back on 25.06.2021, till date, no further steps have been taken to complete disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Aggrieved by which, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the instant Writ Petition is no longer res integra squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19735 of 2023 dated 09.02.2024 and therefore, this Writ Petition may be allowed in the light of the order passed in W.P.No.19735 of 2023.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents on the aforesaid contention.

5. This Court perused the order dated 09.02.2023 in W.P.No.19735 of 2023, wherein in identical circumstances, this Court has passed the following order:-

“6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, as well this Court, on several occasions, have held that the disciplinary proceedings requires to be initiated and concluded within a reasonable time, if the fault of the pendency was not due to the delinquent’s mistake. A learned single Judge of this Court, in the case of Kootha Pillai Vs,The Commissioner, Municipal Administration and 4 others passed in W.Pn.O.15231 of 2006 dated 05.11.2008, had an occasion to refer to various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had ultimately held that the inordinate delay in initiating and completing the disciplinary proceedings, would cause prejudice to the delinquent and therefore, the proceedings itself cannot be continued. Some of the decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge in Kootha Pillai’s case (supra) are as follows:-

“45. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani 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.

46. In State of A.P., v. N.Radhakrishnan reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 19, held as follows: "Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations."

47. In Union of India v. CAT reported in 2005 (2) CTC 169 (DB), this Court held that, "The delay remains totally unexplained. There