SRI. ASHAAD-UR-REHMAN SHARIFF v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

4. SMT. R SHALINI, D/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT URBEN DEVELOPMENT CELL, DODDABALAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561203.

5. RAVINDRA MALAPURA S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANT AGED ABOUT MAJOR, DIRECTOR (ADMIN), DISTRICT URBEN DEVELOPMENT CELL, DAVANAGERE SMART CITY, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577004. (BY SRI. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND 2 SRI S.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO 5) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 277 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, APPLICATION BANGALORE NO.4963/2022 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

05.04.2023 DATED IN IN WP NO. 12226/2023: BETWEEN: SRI. ASHAAD-UR-REHMAN SHARIFF SON OF LATE ZR. SHRIFF AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JOINT DIRECTOR (SBM) OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, BANGALORE-560 001 - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 RESIDING AT NO. 100, RAJIV NAGARA, 1ST STAGE, 1ST CROSS, MYSORE-570 019. (BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA A, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION V.V TOWERS, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DRIECTOR. (BY SRI. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 AND 2) ...RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE DATED

05.04.2023 IN APPLICATION NO.3866/2022 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT) The Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, whereby his Application No.3866 of 2022 & Application No.4963 of 2022 have been negatived. In the said Applications, essentially he had sought for quashment of the Charge Memo.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2.1 Petitioner, a Karnataka Municipal Administrative Service officer, he has also served in different Departments under the Directorate of Municipal Administration in several capacities. When he was functioning as Commissioner of Tumkur Municipal Corporation during the period between 2013 & 2017, certain allegations had sprung on the ground that he had failed to follow the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 in finalizing the engagement of with B.R. Indane Gas Services for gas connection and supply of stove & cylinders to the beneficiaries belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & other Backward - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 Classes. Petitioner having been transferred out of the said post in the year 2017 and worked at different places.

2.2 Petitioner entered the zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher cadre in the year 2022 and the stale allegations having been brought to the fore, the Charge Memo dated 16.07.2022 came to be issued. Several employees who did not come within jurisdiction of Tribunal had approached this Court in a spate of casesand an interim order of stay is said to have been granted in all those cases. The petitioner had filed the subject Applications which came to be negatived by the Tribunal vide order dated 5-04-2023. That is how the petition filed against the same are at our hands.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Charge Memo itself is contrary to law as it is issued about 6 years after the alleged incident. If the petitioner was at fault, nothing stopped the State from initiating action within a reasonable period. No material against him was available then and no material is available even now, either. Therefore, on gross delay of issuing, the Charge Memo ought to have been quashed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further contends that there - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 is no violation of the 1999 Act as is alleged. As a matter of fact that in every cylinder Rs.100/- is saved by the decision of petitioner and despite that Charge Memo is issued to him at the crucial time when he gained entry to the zone of consideration for promotion; this is a wild coincidence. He therefore, seeks quashment of the charge Memo and grant of all consequential benefits including promotion. This he says on the score that his client’s case for promotion was assessed and result is kept in a sealed cover.

4. Per contra, AGA representing the State contends that the order of Tribunal does not warrant any interference as it has detailed references; that delay in issuing Charge Memo of the kind would not cause any prejudice to the delinquent. She would further submit that the provisions of 1999 Act having been analyzed the Tribunal holds that it is matter of evidence as to whether the petitioner has committed any misconduct and therefore, no relief could be accorded to him, till after Disciplinary Enquiry is accomplished. She also resists the - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

5.1. The facts narrated are all a matter of record. It is gainful to peruse the allegations enlisted in the Charge Memo so that their nature, timing & effect on the career potential of the petitioner vis a vis the interest of the administration can be assessed. The same are reproduced below: ““(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)-1 (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9) (cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)-(cid:14)(cid:15)-(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:20) (cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:23), (cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:3), (cid:28)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31) ! "(cid:12)#$%(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:17) &(cid:5)’(cid:2) (cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:3) ((cid:3))(cid:25)*(cid:27)(cid:3) )+(cid:12)(cid:2),(cid:27) -(cid:12)./(cid:17) 0#(cid:27) 1(cid:27)(cid:3)232 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4,5 4!6 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4-1 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4 (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9).(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)-(cid:14)(cid:15)-(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:20) (cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:23), (cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:3), (cid:28)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31) ! "(cid:12)#$%(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:17), (cid:10)2 7(cid:9)#8 9 &(cid:5)"(cid:17) ((cid:3))(cid:25)*(cid:27)(cid:3) )+(cid:12)(cid:2),(cid:27)-(cid:12)./(cid:17)(cid:24) (cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27) (cid:18)(cid:3)"(cid:17):(cid:24).; /(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:31)7#(cid:31)&<(cid:3)=(cid:26)2: (cid:1)#>(cid:24).; 2015-16?(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:28)(cid:12).(cid:2) @A.@(cid:23). )(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)7>(cid:24) (cid:11)(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:25)B 24.10 (cid:27).; 15.00 - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 CD,5E )((cid:3)(cid:26) 2015-16?(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:28)(cid:12).(cid:2) -(cid:12)./(cid:17) 7>(cid:24).; (cid:27)*.10.00 CD,5 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)"(cid:12)(cid:2)#(cid:2)(cid:3)F 4.G(cid:12)= / 4.4(cid:5),B2 +(cid:12),* &(cid:5)2(cid:3)H2 #,(cid:31)2 IJ(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:3)K1,H%(cid:17) (cid:1)B(cid:3)%(cid:17) (cid:1)7C <(cid:5)4(cid:25)(cid:31) L2M<(cid:3)# N(cid:9)O?(cid:17)(cid:24)P(cid:24).; Q(cid:8)R(cid:12) N(cid:9)O?(cid:17)%(cid:17) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)S(cid:9)2?(cid:17) 4T(cid:17)2(cid:3) <2(cid:22) U(cid:22)(cid:9)’,5(cid:2)(cid:3)F /(cid:17).!.V.V /(cid:12)W:(cid:24)(cid:5)X(cid:17) Y(cid:17)(cid:5)B(cid:15) (cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:24)"(cid:17) /(cid:17)(cid:9)#C /(cid:17)*(cid:9)Y(cid:17)(cid:21)(cid:20) )*C(cid:25) 7(cid:24)) Z(cid:12)&(cid:27)[(cid:12)M \G(cid:17)7](cid:24)(cid:2)(cid:3)F (cid:10)W^ (cid:19)(cid:12)P _.(cid:10)(cid:15) 0(cid:5)P(cid:24)(cid:20) %(cid:12)‘A <1(cid:9)(cid:31)A 0#(cid:22)%(cid:17) (cid:27)*.25,02,500/- ,5(cid:2)(cid:3)F 7(cid:24)) Z(cid:12)&(cid:27)[(cid:12)M -(cid:12)#=<(cid:3)# )*C(cid:25), </(cid:12)(cid:31)(cid:27)2 Z(cid:17)*(cid:25)^</(cid:17)^ <(cid:3)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:27)(cid:3) (cid:27)*. 8.37 CD2(cid:21)(cid:3)6 (cid:2)(cid:21)6 (cid:14)(cid:5)a(cid:3) (cid:19)(cid:12)P (cid:25)?(cid:12)(cid:31)a(cid:25) ?(cid:12),(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:25) (cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:9)[(cid:12) ((cid:2)BX(cid:17)) 7(cid:24)),5E 2021(cid:27) 7(cid:24)) 3(1)(i) (ii) )((cid:3)(cid:26) (iii) (cid:2)(cid:3)F (cid:14)C;(cid:5)b (cid:7)<(cid:3)(cid:26) (cid:25)(cid:8))/(cid:17)^ ,(cid:3)(cid:22)R(cid:12)M(cid:27)(cid:3)=(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:22). (cid:10)2:(cid:22)(cid:5)2 9 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4. (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4-2 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4 (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9).(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)-(cid:14)(cid:15)-(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:20) (cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:23), (cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:3), (cid:28)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31) ! "(cid:12)#$%(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:17), (cid:10)2 7(cid:9)#8, 9 &(cid:5)"(cid:17) ((cid:3))(cid:25)*(cid:27)(cid:3) )+(cid:12)(cid:2),(cid:27)-(cid:12)./(cid:17)(cid:24) (cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27) (cid:18)(cid:3)"(cid:17):(cid:24).; /(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:31)7#(cid:31)&<(cid:3)=(cid:26)2: (cid:1)#>(cid:24).; 2017-18?(cid:17)(cid:9) (cid:28)(cid:12).(cid:2).; @A.@(cid:23). )(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)7> )((cid:3)(cid:26) -(cid:12)./(cid:17) 7>(cid:24).; 4(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:21)6 +(cid:12),* &(cid:5)2(cid:3)H2 #,(cid:31),5 G(cid:12)=, 4(cid:22)(cid:7)(cid:21)6 4(cid:5),B2 IJ(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:3)K1,H%(cid:17) @c.V.d %(cid:12)‘A <(cid:5)4(cid:25)(cid:31) <6e .(cid:5)B(cid:15) +(cid:12),* 07F((cid:16)(cid:17) (cid:28)fCK‘,5 L2M<(cid:3)# <(cid:5)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:28)(cid:12))M(cid:8),5 U(cid:22)(cid:9)’ 4(cid:8)Q(cid:8)W(cid:24).; (cid:25)?(cid:12)(cid:31)a(cid:25) -(cid:12)(cid:27)2g(cid:31)(cid:25)X(cid:17) (cid:1)>7(cid:24)) 1999 )((cid:3)(cid:26) 7(cid:24)),5E 2000 (cid:27)(cid:5)X(cid:17) 7(cid:24)) 17/2 (cid:27)(cid:2)h(cid:24) (cid:1)J(cid:12)i#> Y(cid:17)(cid:5)B(cid:15) (cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:17)2(cid:3), N(cid:9)O?(cid:17)(cid:24)(cid:2)(cid:3)F (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)j(cid:12)k(cid:2)%(cid:17)*H<(cid:3)#(cid:5)X(cid:17) dJ(cid:12);>/(cid:12)(cid:22),5 (cid:25)l(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:22)m(cid:5)2 ’?(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:25): 16.05.2017 (cid:27).; <i(cid:21)6 7"(cid:17)(cid:9)(cid:31)g(cid:2) 7(cid:9)P"(cid:12):,*‘ X(cid:12)#8 (cid:1)2(cid:2)(cid:3)F -(cid:12).<"(cid:17), (cid:25)((cid:31)#‘ J(cid:17)*(cid:9)4[(cid:17)<M (cid:25)?(cid:12)(cid:31)a(cid:25) ?(cid:12),(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:25) (cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:9)[(cid:12) ((cid:2)BX(cid:17)) 7(cid:24)),5E 2021(cid:27) 7(cid:24)) - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 3(1) (i) (ii) )((cid:3)(cid:26) (iii) (cid:14)C;(cid:5)b , (cid:7)<(cid:3)(cid:26) (cid:25)(cid:8))/(cid:17)^ ,(cid:3)(cid:22)R(cid:12)M(cid:27)(cid:3)=(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:22), (cid:10)2:(cid:22)(cid:5)2 9 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4-3 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4 (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9).(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:13)-(cid:14)(cid:15)-(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:12)(cid:20) (cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:23), (cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:3), (cid:28)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:30)(cid:31) ! "(cid:12)#$%(cid:17)(cid:16)(cid:17). (cid:10)2 7(cid:9)#8, 9 &(cid:5)"(cid:17) ((cid:3))(cid:25)*(cid:27)(cid:3) )+(cid:12)(cid:2),(cid:27)-(cid:12)./(cid:17)(cid:24) (cid:10)(cid:24)(cid:3)(cid:25)(cid:26)(cid:27) (cid:18)(cid:3)"(cid:17):(cid:24).; /(cid:12)(cid:24)(cid:31)7#(cid:31)&<(cid:3)=(cid:26)2: (cid:1)#>(cid:24).; (cid:27)*.1 CD(cid:25)*^ o(cid:9)Cia6 R(cid:12)#8"(cid:17)(cid:9) /(cid:12))%(cid:12)(cid:22)/U(cid:22)(cid:9)’,5(cid:2)(cid:3)F /(cid:17).!.V.V /(cid:12)W:(cid:24)(cid:5)X(cid:17) Y(cid:17)(cid:5)B(cid:15) (cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:17)2(cid:3) 7#(cid:31)&<Z(cid:17)(cid:9)/(cid:12)M2(cid:3):, (cid:1)2(cid:27)(cid:5)X(cid:17) 4.G(cid:12)=. 4.4(cid:5),B2 +(cid:12),* &(cid:5)2(cid:3)H2 (cid:4)B. IJ(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:3)K1,H%(cid:17) 7(cid:9)BZ(cid:17)(cid:9)/(cid:12)2 @c.V.d %(cid:12)‘A <(cid:5)4(cid:25)(cid:31) ¸ËÖe .(cid:5)B(cid:15) U(cid:22)(cid:9)’%(cid:17) /(cid:12)W:(cid:24)(cid:5)X(cid:17) dJ(cid:12);>/(cid:12)(cid:22),5 Q(cid:8)R(cid:12)N(cid:9)O?(cid:17)(cid:24).; Y(cid:17)(cid:5)B(cid:15) (cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:24)C(cid:3) =H 2:(cid:27)* <(cid:18) Y(cid:17)(cid:5)B(cid:15) (cid:25)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:24)"(cid:17) /(cid:17).!.V.V /(cid:12)W: 1999(cid:27) 7(cid:24)) 5(cid:27)(cid:2)(cid:3)F (cid:14)C;(cid:5)b 2(cid:3):, @c.V.d. <6e, .(cid:5)B(cid:15),5 <(cid:5),(cid:8)(cid:18)p(cid:17) +(cid:12),* 1((cid:27)p(cid:17)(cid:24) (cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:22)((cid:3) (cid:25)(cid:8)) #&<"(cid:17) /(cid:17).!.V.V. /(cid:12)W:(cid:24)(cid:2)(cid:3)F (cid:14)C;(cid:5)b<(cid:3)#, )*C(cid:25) (cid:25)((cid:31)#‘ q(cid:3)‘= @<M (cid:25)?(cid:12)(cid:31)a(cid:25) ?(cid:12),(cid:22)(cid:9)(cid:25) (cid:28)(cid:17)(cid:9)[(cid:12) ((cid:2)BX(cid:17)) 7(cid:24)),5E 2021(cid:27) 7(cid:24)) 3(1) (i) (ii) )((cid:3)(cid:26) (iii) (cid:14)C;(cid:5)b (cid:7)<(cid:3)(cid:26) (cid:25)(cid:8))/(cid:17)^ ,(cid:3)(cid:22)R(cid:12)M(cid:27)(cid:3)=(cid:26)(cid:9)(cid:22). (cid:10)2:(cid:22)(cid:5)2 9 (cid:10)(cid:16)(cid:17)*(cid:9)4. /(cid:17).!.V.V

5.2 The issue now would be whether this Court would interfere with the subject charge sheet, inter alia on the ground of unexplained delay & laches. We are aware that delay per se is not a ground for quashing the disciplinary enquiry initiated by the issuance of charge sheet. However, matter at hand is not that plain & simple. - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 Admittedly, allegations in the Charge Memo pertain to January, 2016 i.e., when petitioner was functioning as the Commissioner of Tumkur Municipal Corporation. Those allegations relate to engaging of a private agency for supply/distribution of gas cylinders sans temder process. The task was accomplished in time. It is also not that in no circumstance, tender procedure cannot be deviated from.

5.3 Petitioner left the office in 2017 having been posted to other place. The Charge Memo dated

16.07.2022 came to be issued, with no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay brooked. Coupled with this is, another important factor namely, petitioner’s entry to the zone of consideration for the higher echelon of service. The version of the charge memo that the petitioner has caused a loss of Rs.8.37 lakh since tender process was not followed, is not prima facie demonstrable. It is not that the articles were not supplied to the members of the oppressed classes or that any one has made complaint about non-supply or low quality of the - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 articles. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of while deciding to hold the enquiry in question.

5.4 A perusal at the Charge Memo is indicative of the fact that the allegations pertain to the years 2015-16. The Charge Memo is issued when the petitioner gets into the zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher cadre. It is on account of issuance of Charge Memo, he is not promoted, DPC having been held with sealed cover procedure. If the allegations could to be made against the petitioner, it could have been done in the year 2016 itself. It is not the case of State that allegations have come to light only in the year 2022. We cannot be oblivious to the incidents of the kind that in public service, speed breakers are thrown when deserving officials gain entry to the zone of consideration for promotion; a small unscrupulous section at times ventures it. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever offered for the long delay brooked in framing the Charge Memo and thereby initiating the proceedings against the petitioner whose record of long service is spotless. - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023

5.5 Let us now examine how the Apex Court views the unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings or their accomplishment against scrupulous officer. (a) In STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. N.RADHAKISHAN1, it is observed as under: “18. In State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570: 1995 SCC (L&S) 541: (1995) 29 ATC 546] State of Punjab was aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashing memo of charges against Goyal and also the order appointing Enquiry Officer to inquire into those charges. In this case the incident, which was the subject-matter of charge, happened in December 1986 and in early January 1987, when Goyal was working as Superintendent of Nabha High Security Jail. It was only on 9-7- 1992 that memo of charges was issued to Goyal. He submitted his explanation on 4-1- 1993 denying the charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed on 20-7-1993 and soon thereafter Goyal filed writ petition in the High Court on 24-8-1993. The High Court quashed the memo of charges on the principal ground of delay of five and a half years in serving the memo of charges, for which there was no acceptable explanation. This Court examined the factual position as to how the delay occurred and if Goyal had been prejudiced in any way on account of delay….

19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases 1 (1998) 4 SCC 154 - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 disciplinary that ground to be examined on and in all situations where there is delay in proceedings. concluding Whether on the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent that disciplinary employee has a proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. …” It is true that it was more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent against the delinquent official should be completed. However, a - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 direction was issued to consider his case for promotion without referring to the pendency of the enquiry. (b) In P.V. MAHADEVAN v. MD, T.N. HOUSING BOARD2, Apex Court has observed as follows: “10. Section 118 specifically provides submission of the abstracts of the accounts at the end of every year and Section 119 relates to annual audit of accounts. These two statutory provisions have not been complied with at all. In the instant case the transaction took place in the year 1990. The expenditure ought to have been considered in the accounts of the succeeding year. In the instant case the audit report was ultimately released in 1994- 95. The explanation offered for the delay in finalising the audit account cannot stand scrutiny in view of the above two provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 17 of 1961. It is now stated that the appellant has retired from service. There is also no acceptable explanation on the side of inordinate delay initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. Mr R. Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel is appearing for the respondent. His submission that the period irregularities by the appellant to the date on which it came to the knowledge of the Housing Board cannot be reckoned for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any delay on the part of the Board in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the appellant has no merit and force. The stand now taken by the respondent in this Court in the counter-affidavit respondent explaining commission of the date of 2 (2005) 6 SCC 636 - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 is not convincing and is only an afterthought to give some explanation for the delay. further with

11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure the disciplinary initiating proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.” (c) In SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE v. PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA3 it has been observed as under: 3 (2012) 11 SCC 565 - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 just and proper “8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which the circumstance. (Vide State of M.P. v. Bani Singh [1990 Supp SCC 738 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 638 : (1991) 16 ATC 514] , State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal [(1995) 2 SCC 570 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 541 : (1995) 29 ATC 546] , Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey [(1995) 3 SCC 134 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 648 : (1995) 29 ATC India v. Ashok Kacker [1995 Supp (1) SCC 180 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 374 : (1995) 29 ATC 145] , Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan [(1996) 3 SCC 157 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 686 : (1996) 33 ATC 745] , State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC 154 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1044 : AIR 1998 SC 1833] , Food Corporation of India v. V.P. Bhatia [(1998) 9 SCC 131 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 466] , Supt. of Police v. T. Natarajan [1999 SCC (L&S) 646] , M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India [(2006) 5 SCC 88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919 , P.D. : Agrawal v. SBI [(2006) 8 SCC 776 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 43] and Govt. of A.P. v. V. Appala , Union 3475] 2006 538] AIR SC - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 Swamy [(2007) 14 SCC 49 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 440].)”

5.6 In N. RADHAKISHAN and P.V. MAHADEVAN cases supra, the Apex Court was considering a delay of 5 years in issuing the charge memo that eventually came to be quashed. In PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA supra, the Apex Court elucidates two important principles viz (i) long & unexplained delay could be one of the grounds to interfere on a challenge to the Charge Memo (ii) the charge memo should not be permitted to be challenged as a matter of course. On a reading of the above decisions what emerges is that, delay in issuing the Charge Memo by itself is prejudicial, if there is no explanation for the delay brooked, especially when it creates a cloud career advancement of the delinquent official who otherwise has unblemished service record. Case of the petitioner eminently fits into the parameters of these rationes. Many juniors of the petitioner are promoted and the case of the petitioner is kept in a sealed cover. There may be cases where notwithstanding delay, inquiry is permitted. This is - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 not such a one. It was alleged plain & simple violation of the normative process enacted in 1999 Act, allegedly, which at all times the Disciplinary Authority was aware. It is not that the disciplinary authority came to know of it only when petitioner rightfully gained entry to the zone of consideration for career advancement like promotion. Therefore, delay in the peculiar facts of this case has undoubtedly caused prejudice as promotion of the petitioner is deferred indefinitely, many of his juniors having have been already promoted. Justice of the case warrants interference of this Court. In the above circumstances, these Petitions are allowed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal; petitioner’s subject Applications having been favoured, a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the charge memo dated 16.07.2022, coupled with a direction to accord all consequential benefits including promotion to the petitioner, within an outer limit of six - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC:51728-DB WP No. 12246 of 2023 C/W WP No. 12226 of 2023 weeks from the date this judgment is handed over to the respondents concerned. Costs made easy. Sd/- (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE Snb/Bsv/Cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30