Disciplinary proceedings must conclude within 90 days or stand closed, with provisional pension payable meanwhile.

The petitioner, a government employee, was placed under deemed suspension after his arrest in March 2001 on a corruption charge.

A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in September 2001; the Inquiry Officer’s 2012 report found Charge No. 2 proved, Charge No. 3 not proved, and made no finding on Charge No. 1.

The petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge in 2011 but acquitted by the High Court in 2018, which held that the prosecution had not proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

The petitioner retired in January 2019.

After a public notice in September 2023, he submitted a response to the inquiry report; he then sought, among other reliefs, quashing of the disciplinary proceeding and payment of pensionary benefits.

The respondents submitted that the proceeding could be concluded within a stipulated period.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner’s deemed suspension was made under Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964; the charges also referred to Rule 3 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

The petitioner sought relief under FR 54-B(1)(a) and (b), but the Court did not decide his substantive entitlement under those provisions.

The Court’s operative direction was that the Disciplinary Authority could decide the proceeding in accordance with law within 90 days, failing which the proceeding would be deemed closed; provisional pension was payable pending that decision or deemed closure.

No precedent was cited.

The Court declined to quash the proceeding because the petitioner had not produced documentary evidence that he had submitted an earlier response to the inquiry report, and the Department had awaited his representation, which was ultimately submitted in 2023.

It nevertheless considered a fixed deadline necessary in light of the proceeding’s long duration and the petitioner’s retirement in 2019.

In directing the Disciplinary Authority to consider the criminal acquittal, the inquiry findings, and the petitioner’s representation, the Court preserved the authority’s opportunity to decide the matter while preventing further indefinite delay.

It also held that provisional pension could not be withheld pending the decision without due process.

The Disciplinary Authority was directed to make a final decision within 90 days, taking into account the specified materials.

If it failed to do so, the proceeding would be deemed closed.

If the petitioner was exonerated, the Authority was to decide his consequential benefits; if found guilty, it could impose a penalty permitted by law.

The petitioner was entitled to provisional pension until a final decision or deemed closure.