Prolonged, unexplained departmental delay renders continued suspension and belated disciplinary proceedings unsustainable.

The respondent was scheduled to retire upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30 April 2006.

He had been placed under suspension in 2002 in contemplation of departmental disciplinary proceedings.

The Department neither pursued the proceedings thereafter nor permitted him to retire on the date of superannuation; instead, his suspension and service were extended.

A criminal case against him ended in acquittal on 25 July 2014.

Despite the acquittal, the Department took no action for approximately four years and issued a charge memo only on 10 May 2018.

The learned Single Judge allowed the respondent’s writ petition in W.P. No. 13711 of 2020 by order dated 23 October 2024.

The State preferred the present intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging that order.

1. Whether the prolonged and unexplained delay in pursuing disciplinary proceedings, while continuing the respondent under suspension and withholding his retirement, justified the relief granted by the learned Single Judge

2. Whether the writ order dated 23 October 2024 disclosed any infirmity warranting interference in intra-Court appeal

The Court applied the general legal principle that disciplinary proceedings cannot be kept pending or initiated after an inordinate and unexplained delay, particularly where an employee has remained under suspension and has been denied normal retirement benefits.

The judgment does not refer to any specific statutory provision or judicial precedent.

Its reasoning rests on the principle that prolonged administrative inaction, followed by issuance of a charge memo after an unreasonable lapse of time, is legally unsustainable.

The Court found that the respondent had remained under suspension from 2002, that the Department had not pursued the contemplated disciplinary proceedings, and that he was not allowed to retire on 30 April 2006.

Even after his acquittal in the criminal case on 25 July 2014, the Department waited for approximately four years before issuing a charge memo on 10 May 2018.

The Court treated this prolonged and unexplained delay as the basis of the learned Single Judge’s decision and found no infirmity in that reasoning.

Accordingly, the State failed to establish any ground for appellate interference.

The writ appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.