Disciplinary authorities must pass final orders expeditiously once a departmental inquiry report is submitted.

The applicant, an Assistant Engineer at AIIMS, was arrested by the CBI in 2018 for alleged offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Consequently, departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

The applicant’s prior attempt to stay the departmental proceedings pending the criminal trial (O.A. No. 1047/2020) was withdrawn after the respondents maintained that both proceedings could continue simultaneously

Although the Inquiry Officer (IO) submitted the final inquiry report on October 17, 2023, the respondents failed to supply a copy to the applicant or pass a final order

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking a direction for the respondents to conclude the proceedings and pass a final order

1. Whether the respondents are legally justified in keeping the departmental proceedings pending after the submission of the Inquiry Officer’s report

2. Whether the applicant's prior request for a stay on the inquiry constitutes a valid defense for the respondents' failure to issue a final order post-inquiry

The court examined the procedure for departmental inquiries under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965

It applied the settled legal principle that departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously

Furthermore, the court relied on the procedural requirement that once an inquiry report is submitted, the disciplinary authority is mandated by service rules and administrative instructions to provide a copy to the delinquent employee and pass a final order within a reasonable timeframe

The Tribunal observed that the respondents had previously opposed a stay on the departmental inquiry on the ground that it should proceed alongside the criminal case

Having taken this stance and subsequently completing the inquiry on October 17, 2023, the respondents could not justify the continued delay in passing a final order

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that the applicant’s earlier requests for a stay justified the current stagnation, noting that once the IO report is submitted, the disciplinary authority must act in accordance with the rules

The court found that there was no valid reason for withholding the IO report or for the failure to conclude the proceedings

This order must be passed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment

The applicant was granted the liberty to challenge the final order if further grievances arise

No order was made as to costs