Unexplained delay bars disciplinary proceedings over a caste certificate absent allegations of fraud.

The petitioner was appointed as a CISF Constable in 2009 after submitting an OBC certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Indi, showing him as Category 3B

In 2022, following a request for verification, the Assistant Commissioner reported that the petitioner belonged to the Hindu Lingayat community, which was not included in the Central OBC List, although it was an OBC in Karnataka’s State List

Relying on those communications, the CISF issued a memorandum and articles of charge on 2 December 2022, alleging that the certificate was false

The petitioner challenged the verification communications and disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner, more than 13 years after his appointment, on the basis that his caste was not included in the Central OBC List, where fraud or fabrication was not alleged

2. Whether the recruitment notification’s lack of clarity about requiring an OBC certificate from the Central List affected the validity of the proceedings

Under Article 226, the High Court may set aside administrative or disciplinary action where the circumstances render its initiation impermissible.

The Court relied on Virupaxagouda S/o Yellappagouda Kareppagoudra v. State of Karnataka and Others, W.P. No. 104460/2022, decided 19 February 2024, which considered the unexplained delay in questioning a certificate after long service and referred to the principle in “Dattu’s case” that, where delay is unexplained, the benefit of long service should not be taken away

The Court also treated the absence of an allegation that the employee forged or fraudulently obtained the certificate as material to whether belated proceedings could continue

The Court noted that the charge was issued more than 13 years after the petitioner’s appointment and that the respondents did not allege that he had fabricated the certificate or misled the authorities

It also observed that Hindu Lingayat was recognised as OBC in Karnataka’s State List and that the recruitment notification did not clearly require candidates to produce a certificate showing inclusion in the Central List

Applying the reasoning in Virupaxagouda and the principle concerning unexplained delay, the Court concluded that, in these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings was not appropriate

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the memorandum and articles of charge dated 2 December 2022 issued by respondent No. 2