UNEXPLAINED 19-YEAR DELAY IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS QUASHES CHARGE-SHEET AND ENTITLES EMPLOYEE TO ALL BENEFITS.

The petitioner, appointed as an Educational Supervisor, Class-III in 1979 in the Municipal School Board, Rajkot, was suspended on December 23, 2005, following alleged complaints against him by the administrative officer

A departmental charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on February 8, 2006

Despite the charge-sheet, the departmental inquiry has not been completed even after more than 15 years, and the petitioner's pension and other retiral benefits have not been fully paid

The petitioner retired in 2009

The respondents recently issued a notice to the petitioner on September 4, 2025, with the intention of deciding the departmental inquiry

The respondents do not contend that the petitioner is responsible for the delay in concluding the inquiry

1. Whether the charge-sheet dated February 8, 2006, should be quashed and set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay of approximately 19 years in concluding the departmental inquiry

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits, including financial emoluments and interest, as if the disciplinary proceedings were never initiated

The court primarily relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan*, reported in 1998 (4) SCC 154, especially paragraphs 18 and 19

This precedent emphasizes that disciplinary proceedings should be concluded expeditiously, and an unexplained, abnormal delay that causes prejudice to the delinquent employee can be a ground for termination of such proceedings

It further states that courts must balance relevant factors, including the nature of the charge and the reason for the delay, to determine if quashing proceedings is in the interest of justice, particularly when the employee is not to blame for the delay

The Supreme Court in *State of Punjab and others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal* (1995 (2) SCC 570), as referenced in *N. Radhakishan*, broadly applied principles from *A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak* (1992 (1) SCC 225) regarding speedy trial to disciplinary proceedings, suggesting that while quashing charges due to delay is a possible outcome, other appropriate orders can be made

The court found that the charge-sheet against the petitioner was issued in 2006, and despite the petitioner retiring in 2009, the departmental proceedings had not concluded by 2026, representing an extraordinary and unexplained delay of approximately 19 years

The respondents did not argue that the petitioner contributed to this delay, nor did they claim the charges were complex enough to justify such an extended period

Applying the principles from *State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan*, the court concluded that such an inordinate and unexplained delay automatically prejudices the employee and reflects a lack of seriousness on the part of the authorities in pursuing the charges

Therefore, balancing the considerations, the court determined that permitting the charge-sheet to continue would be unjust, directly aligning with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation that delay defeats justice

The petitioner is entitled to all financial emoluments as if the disciplinary proceedings were never initiated

All financial dues are to be paid to the petitioner within eight weeks from the receipt of the order, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of entitlement until payment, recognizing the denial of retiral benefits for approximately 16 years due to the respondents' lack of seriousness in concluding the proceedings