Delayed charge sheet and intervening promotion do not warrant quashing absent established prejudice or condonation of misconduct.

The petitioner, serving as the Chief Controller of Accounts in the CBIC, was implicated in alleged irregularities concerning the Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO) Examinations held in 2013-14

A show-cause notice was issued on 28 March 2016, to which she replied on 11 April 2016; however, no immediate inquiry followed

The petitioner was promoted on 18 June 2021

Subsequently, on 27 June 2023, a formal charge sheet was issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, followed by the appointment of an Inquiry Officer on 22 November 2024

The petitioner challenged the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 4803/2024 on grounds of inordinate delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on 2 April 2026, holding that the delay was explained by a pending CBI investigation and that promotion did not constitute condonation of misconduct

The petitioner then moved the High Court via a writ of certiorari

1. Whether the delay of nearly a decade in issuing the charge sheet is sufficient to interdict the disciplinary proceedings at the threshold

2. Whether the petitioner’s promotion in 2021 creates a legal presumption that the alleged misconduct was condoned

3. Whether the retirement of potential witnesses during the period of delay constitutes "prejudice" sufficient to quash the inquiry

Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565, which establishes that a charge sheet should generally not be quashed at the initial stage unless issued by an incompetent authority or if the delay causes demonstrable prejudice

Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28, holding that a charge sheet does not per se give rise to a cause of action as it is a premature stage for judicial review

Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, which clarifies that promotion in the interregnum does not automatically drop pending or prospective charges

The limits of certiorari jurisdiction as defined in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR 1964 SC 477, emphasizing that High Courts cannot act as appellate courts over findings of fact reached by tribunals

The Court observed that delay alone is not a ground for quashing proceedings unless accompanied by prejudice or lack of explanation

It found the respondent’s explanation—that the CBI held all relevant records from 2016 to 2021—to be a reasonable justification for the timing of the charge sheet

Addressing prejudice, the Court rejected the petitioner's claim regarding the retirement of officials as "vague," noting that she failed to identify specific witnesses or demonstrate how their retirement prevented her from accessing records or mounting a defense

On the issue of promotion, the Court held that since no charge sheet was pending at the time of the 2021 promotion, it could not be treated as a condonation of misconduct

The Court maintained that under certiorari jurisdiction, it would not interfere with the Tribunal’s appreciation of evidence regarding the adequacy of the delay's explanation

It held that there was no unexplained delay or demonstrable prejudice that warranted the interdiction of the disciplinary inquiry at its inception

The Court clarified that all contentions on merits remain open for the petitioner to argue during the disciplinary proceedings, which must be conducted with due expedition