Unexplained inordinate delay renders disciplinary proceedings based on stale allegations unsustainable.

The petitioner received compassionate appointment as Assistant Grade-III in 2006 following her first husband’s death.

After she remarried in 2007, her former mother-in-law complained that the petitioner had manipulated her initial declaration and failed to maintain the deceased’s dependants.

The petitioner replied to an authority’s notice in 2008, but the matter remained inactive until a renewed complaint in 2016 led to a charge-sheet.

An ex parte departmental enquiry resulted in her removal in 2019; the appellate authority upheld that decision in 2021.

The petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226, alleging unexplained delay, lack of opportunity to be heard and cross-examine witnesses, and that the charges were unfounded.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings and removal order were unsustainable because the authorities initiated proceedings after an unexplained, prolonged delay concerning allegations known to them since 2007.

Whether the findings and penalty could stand where the petitioner’s defence and relevant circumstances were allegedly not properly considered.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the challenged disciplinary and appellate orders.

It applied the service-law principle that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated with reasonable dispatch and that unexplained inordinate delay may prejudice an employee and weigh against sustaining proceedings.

It applied the service-law principle that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated with reasonable dispatch and that unexplained inordinate delay may prejudice an employee and weigh against sustaining proceedings, relying on P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636, and Amresh Shrivastava v. State of M.P., (2025) 4 SCR 488.

It also relied on Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, (2016) 12 SCC 342, for the principle that termination of a compassionate appointment after a long period is not justified where the relevant facts were known to the State and there was no concealment or false declaration.

The Court found that the authorities had notice of the complaint in 2007 and received the petitioner’s reply in 2008, yet did not act for eight years before issuing the charge-sheet in 2016.

The delay was unexplained and, in the Court’s view, prejudiced the petitioner.

It also noted that the appointment had followed scrutiny and verification by the competent authority, and that the enquiry and disciplinary authorities had failed to properly consider the petitioner’s defence and the complainant’s receipt of family pension and residence with other earning sons.

In those circumstances, the Court considered the findings unsustainable and the removal penalty disproportionate.

It directed that the petitioner be reinstated with continuity of service and consequential benefits in accordance with law.