Departmental Inquiries Must Be Concluded Within Stipulated Timeframes to Prevent Prejudicial Delay Against Retired Officers

The applicant, an officer of the All India Services (now retired) holding the rank of Inspector General of Police (I.G. Modernization), Bihar, was served with a Memorandum of Charge for major penalty disciplinary proceedings on 31.01.2024, regarding allegations from the year 2018.

The applicant challenged the proceedings, arguing they were motivated to delay his pensionary benefits and noted that he had been promoted twice (to DIG in 2019 and IG in 2023) after the alleged incident.

Despite the applicant’s regular attendance, the inquiry was adjourned eight times due to the absence of the Conducting Officer or witnesses.

The State government issued four successive "Sankalps" (administrative orders) extending the inquiry period, with the latest extension reaching 03.10.2026.

1. Whether the continued delay and repeated extensions of the departmental proceedings against the retired officer are legally sustainable.

2. Whether the respondents are obligated to conclude the disciplinary inquiry within a specific time frame as per judicial and executive mandates.

The court primarily relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court's ruling in Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, which mandates that every employer must make a sincere endeavor to conclude departmental inquiries within six months, with an outer limit of one year.

The court applied the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (DoPT) Office Memorandum No. DOPT-1675343662426 dated 02 February 2023, which established guidelines and timelines for the timely disposal of departmental proceedings against All India Services officers.

The Tribunal found that the department adopted a "casual approach" by granting mechanical adjournments due to the absence of its own officers and witnesses, while the applicant remained cooperative.

It observed that the repeated "Sankalps" for extension lacked cogent reasoning and were issued merely on the recommendation of the Enquiry Commissioner without substantive justification.

The Tribunal reasoned that keeping a retired officer under a "sword of Damocles" for over 18 months beyond his retirement—especially regarding eight-year-old allegations—constituted "litigation by attrition" and "inordinate and unexplained delay" in violation of the Prem Nath Bali mandate.

The Tribunal held that no further extensions shall be granted without its explicit permission for cogent reasons and ordered that if the respondents fail to conclude the proceedings by 03.10.2026 without such leave, the departmental proceedings shall be deemed quashed, and the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits.