Unexplained and prolonged disciplinary proceedings violating prescribed timelines warrant quashing of the charge memorandum.

The applicant, a retired Assistant Engineer (QS & C)/Assistant Garrison Engineer (Contracts), was served with a charge memorandum dated 16 October 2018 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The charges concerned alleged professional lapses in the cancellation of contracts without higher-authority approval, failure to file caveats, non-collection and delayed deduction of inspection/service deductions, and deficiencies in manning contracts, allegedly violating Rules 3(a)(i)–(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

As the applicant was due to retire on 31 January 2020, he approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 928/2019. By order dated 2 August 2019, the Tribunal directed the respondents to supply the requested documents, or issue a speaking order explaining their relevance, and to complete the enquiry within four months.

The applicant retired on 31 January 2020, after which provisional pension and other retirement benefits were released, but his death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG) was withheld because of the pending disciplinary proceedings.

Although an enquiry report was reportedly received and forwarded to the competent authority in March/April 2020, the disciplinary proceedings were not concluded. In 2024, a fresh Presenting Officer was appointed following the death of the earlier Presenting Officer, and the applicant was again directed to participate in the enquiry, including through video conference.

1. Whether the prolonged and unexplained delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, despite the Tribunal’s direction to complete the enquiry within four months, rendered the charge memorandum and proceedings liable to be quashed?

2. Whether the respondents could recommence or continue the enquiry after an enquiry report had already been submitted, particularly after the applicant’s retirement and the death of the earlier Presenting Officer?

3. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally defective because the charge-sheet did not contain a list of witnesses?

4. Whether the applicant was entitled to release of withheld DCRG and issuance of a final PPO upon quashing of the disciplinary proceedings?

The Tribunal applied the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, particularly Rule 3(a)(i)–(iii), and Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, under which disciplinary proceedings had been initiated.

The Tribunal relied on the principle that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-judicial and that charges must be established through legally admissible material proved in the enquiry, as stated in Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713, and Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank , reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570.

It further relied on the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 26 March 2024, paragraph 23(14), prescribing completion of disciplinary enquiries within 18 months from issuance of the charge-sheet, and referred to the DoP&T circular dated 14 October 2013.

The principles governing delay were drawn from State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan , AIR 1998 SC 1833, namely that unexplained and abnormal delay must be assessed in light of the nature of the charges, the cause of delay, prejudice to the delinquent, and the administration’s interest in pursuing the proceedings.

The Tribunal also relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Prakash Singh , judgment dated 23 April 2025, which held that repeated opportunities to revive stale disciplinary proceedings should not be granted where substantial delay and unfairness make continuation unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the charge memorandum had been issued on 16 October 2018, yet the proceedings remained incomplete for several years despite the earlier direction to conclude the enquiry within four months.

The respondents did not establish that the applicant had obstructed the enquiry or that unavoidable circumstances justified the delay.

The Tribunal also found it legally inexplicable that a fresh enquiry was initiated after an enquiry report had already been submitted to the competent authority; the subsequent appointment of a new Presenting Officer did not, by itself, justify restarting the proceedings.

Applying the principles in N. Radhakishan , the Tribunal treated the delay as abnormal and inadequately explained, causing continuing mental and financial prejudice to the retired applicant through withholding of DCRG and payment of only provisional pension.

It further noted that the charge-sheet did not annex a list of witnesses, and considered this an additional procedural defect because documentary allegations could not be treated as proved merely on the basis of unproved materials or an investigation report.

In view of the prolonged delay, non-compliance with the Tribunal’s earlier order, the defective procedure, and the unfairness of reviving the enquiry after retirement, the Tribunal concluded that no useful purpose would be served by permitting the disciplinary proceedings to continue.

It quashed and set aside the charge memorandum dated 16 October 2018 and, consequently, terminated the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of prolonged non-completion, violation of the Tribunal’s earlier direction, and non-compliance with the applicable time-limit principles.

The respondents were directed to release the withheld DCRG, issue a final PPO, and grant all consequential benefits within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The O.A. was disposed of without any order as to costs.