Disciplinary action cannot proceed when there is inordinate, unexplained delay and procedural irregularities in the charge memo.

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

He was implicated in a CBI case on September 5, 2011, for allegedly demanding illegal gratification, but the case was closed due to insufficient evidence

The 1st respondent initiated major penalty proceedings against him on December 7, 2012, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, with three articles of charges

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 accepted findings on Articles II and III

The case was referred to UPSC on November 23, 2015, but returned due to procedural deficiencies, including missing documents and authentication issues

Subsequently, two more IOs were appointed on December 14, 2018, and June 22, 2020, respectively, with the third IO tasked to conduct the inquiry afresh

The applicant argued that the disciplinary proceedings were protracted for over nine years, causing prejudice, and that some charges were based on facts already found to be a "mistake of facts" by the CBI

Whether the prolonged and unexplained delay in the disciplinary proceedings, coupled with procedural irregularities and the introduction of new charges without proper authorization, vitiates the entire disciplinary process against the applicant

The court primarily applied the principle that inordinate and unexplained delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings, which causes prejudice to the charged employee, can lead to the quashing of such proceedings

It referred to the Supreme Court's pronouncements in *State of Andhra Pradesh Versus N. Radhakrishnan* (CDJ 1998 SC 883)

and *P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, Tamil Nadu Housing Board* (CDJ 2005 SC 592), which emphasize that the court must balance the interest of clean administration with the employee's right to expeditious proceedings, especially when the delay is abnormal and unexplained

The court also highlighted the mandatory requirement of Presidential approval under Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, for initiating fresh or adding articles of charge against a retired employee

The court found the justification for the delay provided by the respondents unsatisfactory

It noted an unexplained delay of over a year between the cause of action and the framing of charges, and that the disciplinary authority took 18 months just to appoint an IO

Despite the applicant’s retirement in 2013, the IO took a long time to submit the report, which was then disagreed upon by the DA

Crucially, the court highlighted that it took ten years for the respondents to rectify the basic procedural mistakes pointed out by the UPSC in 2015, such as failing to furnish fundamental documents and authenticate others

The court further observed that the DA decided to appoint another IO to look into the charge of "soliciting business" and fill procedural gaps, even though "soliciting business" was not part of the original charge memo and not held by the previous IO

This, the court concluded, amounted to altering the article of charge-I without obtaining the mandatory approval of the President, as required under Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, for retired employees

Such actions demonstrated a lackadaisical manner in conducting the inquiry and a failure to follow due procedure

Citing the judgment in *State of Andhra Pradesh Versus N. Radhakrishnan* which emphasized that unexplained delay prejudices the delinquent employee, and *Union of India & Another Vs Hari Singh* (CDJ 2013 DHC 1293) which stated that unexplained and unreasonable delay per se results in prejudice, the court determined that the more than 12-year delay made it nearly impossible for the applicant to defend his case, causing serious prejudice

The charge sheet dated December 7, 2012, and all consequential actions/proceedings of the respondents were quashed and set aside as being bad in law

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