Tribunal cannot decline extension of time for disciplinary inquiry after necessitating delays through retrospective timelines and stays.

Respondent No. 1, a Superintendent of Police, faced disciplinary proceedings for allegedly facilitating illegal sand mining.

The Respondent challenged the non-supply of documents before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No. 3143/2022, which stayed the inquiry from 10.11.2022 until 15.12.2023.

On 09.02.2024, the CAT directed the inquiry to conclude within three months.

The Petitioner (State) sought a six-month extension; however, the CAT granted it retrospectively from 10.05.2024, effectively leaving the Petitioner with only 38 days to conclude the proceedings.

A subsequent application for a further six-month extension was dismissed by the CAT via the 'Impugned Order' dated 17.10.2025.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside this dismissal.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in declining a further extension of time for the completion of disciplinary inquiry given the procedural history and nature of charges.

The Court emphasized the principle that while the expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is desirable for both the employer and the delinquent officer, such timelines must be practicable and afford the employer a meaningful opportunity to probe serious allegations.

The Court relied on the doctrine of fairness and procedural safeguards, noting that judicial orders (specifically stay orders) that halt proceedings for significant durations must be factored into the calculation of reasonable time for completion.

The Court reasoned that the CAT failed to consider that the inquiry was stayed for over a year due to its own interim orders.

By making the previous extension retrospective, the CAT created an "unduly constricted timeline" of 38 days, which made the completion of a complex inquiry—involving witness examinations and documentary evidence—impracticable.

The Court observed that refusing an extension in this factual matrix would lead to an inconclusive inquiry, which serves neither the interest of the State nor the Respondent.

It further held that the Respondent's approaching retirement could not outweigh the necessity of allowing serious charges of corruption and illegal mining to reach a logical culmination.

The Court held that the dismissal of the extension application was unsustainable given the practical consequences of the CAT's previous retrospective timeline.

Consequently, the Petitioner was granted a further period of six months from the date of the judgment to conclude the disciplinary inquiry.