A 16-year delay without employee fault warrants quashing disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioner challenged a departmental proceeding initiated by memorandum dated 13 May 2010, alleging misconduct under the Odisha Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959.

He submitted his defence on 22 June 2010; an Enquiry Officer was appointed in October 2010 and replaced in May 2012.

Although the petitioner requested that the departmental proceeding be deferred pending a related vigilance case, an enquiry notice was issued in February 2013.

The petitioner retired on 30 June 2021, but the departmental proceeding remained unresolved.

During the writ proceedings, the State informed the Court that the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report on 9 October 2026 recommending that the proceeding be dropped, subject to the final outcome of the vigilance case.

The Court relied on the principle that whether delay warrants termination of disciplinary proceedings depends on the circumstances of the case, including the nature and complexity of the charges, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the employee; unexplained abnormal delay may justify quashing proceedings (State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SC 1833).

It also relied on the Supreme Court’s stated expectation that employers should ordinarily conclude departmental inquiries within six months and, where unavoidable causes require an extension, within no more than one year (Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010, reported as AIR 2016 SC 101).

The proceeding involved charges under Rules 21(3), 21(4) and Rule 3 of the Odisha Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959.

The proceeding had remained pending since 2010, despite the petitioner’s filing of a defence and the appointment of Enquiry Officers, and was still unresolved when he retired in 2021.

The Court found no fault attributable to the petitioner that explained the delay.

It also noted that the Enquiry Officer’s report recommended dropping the proceeding.

Applying the principles governing delay in disciplinary proceedings, the Court concluded that allowing the matter to continue after approximately 16 years was unjustified.

It quashed the proceeding initiated by memorandum dated 13 May 2010 and disposed of the writ petition.