Inordinate delay does not vitiate disciplinary proceedings if the delinquent employee’s conduct contributed to the delay.

The applicant, while serving as Principal of the State Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology (SIHMCT), Tiruchirapalli, was a member of an AICTE Expert Committee that inspected Lucknow College of Technology in July 2007

In 2009, the CBI registered a case alleging infrastructure deficiencies in the inspected college and recommended major penalty proceedings against the applicant in November 2010

The applicant subsequently transferred to IHMCT, Thiruvananthapuram, under the Union Ministry of Tourism in November 2010

Despite communications from the Government of Tamil Nadu in 2014 and 2019 requesting disciplinary action, the 1st Respondent issued a Charge Memorandum only on 05.02.2019, shortly before the applicant’s superannuation on 31.05.2019

The applicant challenged the memorandum on grounds of inordinate and unexplained delay

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay warranting their quashment.

2. Whether the applicant contributed to the delay by changing jurisdictions without disclosing the pending investigation.

3. Whether the seriousness of the allegations outweighs the prejudice caused by the delay in initiating the inquiry.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of substantive fairness under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which require a fair and justifiable reason for an employer to proceed against an employee within a reasonable time

It relied on State of M.P. v. Bani Singh (1990), which held that inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation justifies quashing proceedings

State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal (1995), which necessitates balancing the delay against the gravity of the charges

Furthermore, the court considered the dictum in Additional Chief Secretary v. Kishore Kumar J (2024), emphasizing that a fair trial includes the right to be tried within a reasonable time unless the delinquent servant contributed to the delay

The Tribunal observed that while the inspection occurred in 2007 and the charge sheet was served in 2019, the decision to initiate action was taken timely in 2010 following the CBI report

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was aware of the investigation as early as April 2010 when his statement was recorded

Although there was administrative delay due to lack of communication between the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Ministry of Tourism, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s technical resignation and move to a different jurisdiction in November 2010 appeared to be a "conscious call" to avoid proceedings, thereby contributing to the delay

Given the serious nature of the allegations involving gross negligence in infrastructure verification, the Tribunal reasoned that public interest required a full inquiry and that the facts did not justify a waiver of proceedings

The Tribunal concluded that the gravity of the charges justified the continuation of the disciplinary process despite the time elapsed

The interim order staying the proceedings was vacated, and the respondents were permitted to proceed with the inquiry