Delay in disciplinary proceedings affecting defense of a retired employee warrants quashing proceedings.

The applicant, S. Kotteeswaran, retired on superannuation on November 30, 2013, as a Junior Technical Assistant.

A CBI case was registered against him on September 5, 2011, for allegedly demanding illegal gratification, which was later closed by the CBI Court due to insufficient evidence, recommending major penalty proceedings.

On December 7, 2012, the 1st respondent issued a Charge Memo under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, with three articles of charges: seeking illegal gratification, engaging in business without intimation, and failing to intimate property acquisitions.

The first Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted a report on February 21, 2014, finding Article I not proved, Article II proved, and Article III partly proved.

The Disciplinary Authority (DA) tentatively disagreed with the IO's finding on Article I and referred the matter to UPSC on September 30, 2015, under Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

UPSC returned the case due to non-furnishing of documents and procedural inconsistencies.

Subsequently, two more IOs were appointed, with the third appointed on June 22, 2020, to conduct the inquiry afresh.

The current inquiry report is awaited.

The applicant filed the OA seeking to quash the proceedings due to prolonged delay and alleged illegality in changing charges.

Whether the prolonged delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, coupled with procedural irregularities and the introduction of new charges without proper authorization, renders the entire proceedings illegal and liable to be quashed.

The court primarily applied principles of administrative law regarding the impact of inordinate and unexplained delay on disciplinary proceedings, citing Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments such as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and anr (CDJ 1990 SC 415), P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, Tamil Nadu Housing Board (CDJ 2005 SC 592), and State of Andhra Pradesh Versus N. Radhakrishnan (CDJ 1998 SC 883).

These precedents establish that while mere delay is not fatal, inordinate and unexplained delay causing prejudice to the charged employee may warrant quashing the proceedings, especially when there is no justification for the delay.

The court also referred to Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which mandates Presidential approval for initiating fresh or adding articles to a charge memo for retired employees.

The court found the respondent's justification for the delay "far from satisfactory".

It noted an unexplained delay of over a year in framing charges and 18 months merely for appointing an IO.

Despite the applicant's retirement in 2013, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the IO's report, and then took ten years to address deficiencies pointed out by UPSC in 2015.

The court highlighted that UPSC's concerns were "very primary in nature" regarding the non-furnishing of essential documents like the defense statement of the charged officer.

Crucially, the court observed that the disciplinary authority decided to conduct a further inquiry by appointing a new IO "with new terms of reference" to look into "soliciting business," which UPSC had noted was not part of the original charge memo.

This alteration of the charge memo for a retired employee without the mandatory approval of the President, as required under Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, was deemed a significant procedural lapse.

The court concluded that the inquiry was conducted in a "lackadaisical manner" without due procedure, and the additional charge lacked competent authority approval.

The inordinate delay of over 12 years since the incident, and 12 years post-retirement, was found to cause "serious prejudice" to the applicant, making it "nearly impossible" for him to recollect and defend his case, especially given his unblemished 37-year service record.

Furthermore, the addition of new charges by the disciplinary authority without the mandatory approval of the competent authority (President) for a retired employee, in contravention of Rule 8 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, rendered the proceedings procedurally flawed.

The charge sheet dated December 7, 2012, and all consequential actions/proceedings were quashed and set aside as "bad in law".

The applicant was granted consequential benefits, including arrears of pay, allowances, and pensionary benefits that had been withheld.

MA 117/2025 for stay of Office Memorandum dated January 23, 2025, was disposed of.