Statutory departmental proceedings are liable to be quashed for inordinate, unexplained delay causing prejudice to the delinquent.

The Petitioner, a retired government servant now aged 90, retired from service on August 31, 1995

While in service, a disciplinary proceeding (C.D.I. Case No. 12/98) was initiated against him in 1998 following his implication in a criminal case (G.R. Case No. 776 of 1996)

Although the inquiry report was submitted on December 12, 2001, the proceedings remained pending for over 27 years without finality

Meanwhile, the criminal court had ordered a CBI investigation in 1999, which was never carried out

Consequently, the Petitioner was denied full retiral benefits, receiving only a provisional pension

In 2025, the authorities issued a demand letter for recovery of Rs. 13,92,266.34, which the Petitioner challenged alongside the long-pending departmental proceeding

The court primarily applied the principles of administrative justice regarding disciplined proceedings, emphasizing that while rules must take their course, "delay defeats justice"

It relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s rulings in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, which holds that unexplained delay causes prejudice to the charged officer

Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi, which mandates that departmental inquiries should ideally be concluded within six months to one year

Furthermore, it applied the ratio from State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, establishing that abnormal, unexplained delay without fault of the employee vitiates the proceedings

The Court observed that the departmental proceeding initiated in 1998 remained unresolved despite the inquiry report being available since 2001

The State failed to provide any valid instruction or explanation for this 27-year delay, noting only that certain criminal records were "not traceable"

The Court found that no fault for the delay could be attributed to the Petitioner

Applying the precedents, the Court determined that keeping a 90-year-old retired employee in "mental agony and monetary loss" for decades without concluding investigations—including a CBI probe that never commenced—is arbitrary and violative of the right to a speedy conclusion of justice

The Court reasoned that the balance of justice tilted in favor of the Petitioner, as the disciplinary authority’s lack of seriousness in pursuing the charges over three decades caused irreparable prejudice

It held that the inordinate delay without the Petitioner’s fault necessitated the termination of the proceedings. The Court directed Opposite Party No. 2 to release all retiral benefits due to the Petitioner within three months; failing which, the Petitioner is entitled to interest at 6% per annum on all such benefits

The Writ Petition was allowed