Madhya Pradesh High Court
Matadin Kirar vs Principal Secretary State Of M.P. on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208
1 WP-705-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 705 of 2012
MATADIN KIRAR
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Sonal Mittal- Advocate for petitioner.
Shri M.S. Jadon- Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
Order Reserved on 17.11.2025
Delivered on 10.12.2025
ORDER
The present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) That, the order dated 4.7.2011 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P/2) may kindly be quashed.
ii) That, the respondents may kindly be directed consequentially (in case relief No.1 is granted) to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Principal, Model School/Project Administrator/Assistant Commissioner and grant him seniority from the date his juniors were promoted, in case he is found fit for promotion.
iii) That, in case the Hon'ble Court is not satisfied to grant relief No.1 then the petitioner prays in the alternative that the currency of the penalty of withholding 2 increments with non-cumulative effect be counted from the earlier date of order i.e. 22.11.2007.
And consequential to that the respondents may kindly be directed to grant relief No.2 to the petitioner.
iv) Any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 2 WP-705-2012 case may kindly be passed."
2. The petitioner vide order dated 7.4.1977 was appointed as a Lecturer in the Tribal Welfare Department. At the relevant point of time petitioner was posted as a Block Development Education Officer, Athner, Distt. Baitul. Respondents have issued charge sheet dated 19.08.2003 (Annexure P/3)against the petitioner thereby 4 charges were leveled against him regarding irregularities committed in the work of Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, which are quoted herein below:-
"1- Withholding the cheque meant for payment of construction work of primary school and demanding money from Sarpanch.
2- Not performing duties as per the Mission, replaced trained teachers working under the Mission with Shikshakarmis unauthorizedly.
3- Unauthorised sanction of payment of Rs. 1,500/- instead of Rs. 500/- to one peon of BRC. Athner. 4- Allegation of misbehaviour with one person belonging to Scheduled Tribe."
3. The petitioner filed his reply on 15.09.2003 thereby specifically denying all the charges. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that without considering the reply to the charge-sheet, respondents have issued supplementary charge-sheet dated 23.01.2004 levelling three additional charges, which are quoted hereby below:-
" 5- Non-compliance of the transfer order. 6- Unauthorized absence from duty at the transferred place of posting.
7- Passing order of transfer of some employees unauthorizedly."
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that previous first charge sheet was issued on 19th of August, 2003 and petitioner has submitted his reply on 15th September, 2003 and the supplementary charge-sheet has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 3 WP-705-2012 issued after a delay of five months i.e. 23.01.2004. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that delay of five months have not been explained by the respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that again the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 20.03.2004 to the supplementary charge-sheet denying the charges and mentioned that transfer order mentioned in the charge sheet was already stayed by this Court by order dated 28.8.2003 and also mentioned that absence was due to sickness and for that period he has already submitted leave application and medical certificate. Petitioner further stated in his reply that transfer order of petitioner was passed on the direction of Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Baitul. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority was not convinced with the reply of the petitioner and instituted departmental enquiry against him. The enquiry Officer was appointed who proceeded in the departmental enquiry in an arbitrary manner, therefore, the petitioner submitted his application for changing of enquiry officer on 24.5.2004 mentioning that enquiry Officer was totally prejudiced with the petitioner but the authorities rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 12.7.2024 and the same enquiry officer proceeded without following the procedure as prescribed in the disciplinary rules. Thereafter the enquiry officer has submitted a enquiry report and concluded in the enquiry that all the charges were found proved. She further submitted that the enquiry Officer has submitted enquiry report dated 21.08.2006 after a period of more than two years. She further submitted that upon the enquiry report findings were recorded by Additional Commissioner in two note sheets observing that Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 4 WP-705-2012 enquiry was not conducted as per the procedure (rules prescribed). It was also observed that there was no cross-examination of witnesses nor there were signatures of petitioner neither the charges have been supported by documentary evidence. After considering the representation of the petitioner in enquiry report it was found that charge Nos. 1 to 7 are not of serious nature and not related to administrative irregularities and also mentioned that the case can be closed. She further submitted that despite the aforesaid note sheets, disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect issued on 22.11.2007 by respondent No. 2 due to malice. Thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 on 10.01.2008. Upon consideration of the appeal, the appellate authority quashed the punishment order holding that the enquiry was conducted arbitrarily, without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and in contravention of the Rules. The matter was remanded for fresh enquiry with the direction to conclude the same within three months by order dated 13.06.2008. Thereafter fresh enquiry was held by the concerned enquiry officer and the concerned Officer did not comply with the order passed by the appellate authority for completing the enquiry within three months. The enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 18.11.2009 whereby charges Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 were not found proved, Charge no. 3 has been found partially proved and Charges Nos. 5 and 6 were found proved. She further submitted that this report was again submitted with delay of more than 1 year. She further submitted that against the disciplinary authority/respondent No. 2 has took a long period of 13 months in passing Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 5 WP-705-2012 the order pursuant to the enquiry report and after a delay of 13 months by order dated 31.12. 2010 respondent No. 2 inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that disciplinary authority has not considered the documents submitted by the petitioner. She further submitted that respondent No. 2 has merely agreed to the findings of the enquiry report without properly considering the documents submitted by the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 has merely agreed to the finding of the enquiry report, without any independent finding or reasoning. Thereafter the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 24.01.2011. He also submitted written arguments in his appeal (Annexure P/13). Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that petitioner has mentioned various facts in his appeal as well as in written argument and the appellate authority without properly appreciating the facts of the case and contention of petitioner which has not been considered by the appellate authority and the appeal has been rejected by order dated 4.7.2011 after more than 5 months time.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the first enquiry report all the charges were found proved against the petitioner and based upon which punishment of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect was imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority in view of the charges leveled against him but in the subsequent enquiry report only two charges (relating to transfer of the petitioner) were found proved and one charge was partially found proved, then too based upon such enquiry report stringent punishment of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 6 WP-705-2012 effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that all aforesaid action taken against the petitioner due to malice of one Mr. Kamel Patel who was a local political leader and one Additional Commissioner, Tribal Welfare who was Project Administrator in District Baitul where the petitioner was posted as Block Development Education Officer. The said Additional Commissioner was interested in appointment of one particular person on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Class II. The petitioner being In-charge of those proceeding of appointment did not acceded to his demand. Thus, the entire malafide action was launched against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that on the aforesaid malafide by Kamal Patel, Additional Commissioner, the entire exercise was brought with illegality. Therefore, the appellate authority quashed the entire proceedings and directed for fresh inquiry. When the matter was again reached to the appellate authority after fresh order of punishment, the said Additional Commissioner was there in the head office at Bhopal in the capacity of Additional Commissioner Tribal Welfare. Thus, on his behest, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and he has been punished more severely even though lesser charges were found proved against him in the second round of departmental proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as petitioner was retired on 30.11.2012 and vide impugned punishment order dated 31.12.2010, punishment of withholding two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed and as the petitioner was retired between penalty period therefore penalty inflicted upon him was affecting the entire retiral benefit of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 7 WP-705-2012 the petitioner as the last drawn salary is reduced by two increments. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that due to the aforesaid charge sheet and punishment, the petitioner has not been promoted on the post of Principal, Model School/Project Administrator/Assistant commissioner in the month of September 2011 and 8 persons who were junior to the Petitioner were already been promoted on 8-11-2011. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner had attended each and every date in the departmental inquiry for which notice was served upon him. He did not remain absent after service of notice of the departmental proceedings on any date. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that delay has been caused deliberately by the Respondent to deprive the Petitioner from being promoted, Respondents had continued the departmental proceedings against Petitioner from 2003 to December 2010 and inflicted the punishment which affected the retiral benefits of Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that this deliberate act of malafide against the Petitioner is only for the reason that most officers were annoyed with the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the period of long seven years taken by the department in completing the disciplinary proceedings is contrary to the direction issued by the State Government in its Circular dated 4-6-1997 and 10-3-1997 which provides for conclusion of departmental inquiry within a period of one year. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that although the impugned punishment is a minor punishment, but it has an affect of major penalty for the reason that the currency of the punishment would run up to the retirement of the petitioner and all retiral benefits have Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 8 WP-705-2012 been calculated on the basis of last drawn salary as two increments has not been included due to the impugned punishment order and due to delay, the petitioner has not been promoted on higher post and 8 junior persons were already been promoted on higher post. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that, when the petitioner challenged the impugned punishment order by filing an appeal on 24.1.2011, the same was decided after taking period of 6 months i.e., on 4.12. 2011. The delay has been deliberately caused by the respondents so as to deprive the petitioner from being promoted and further benefits in his career till his retirement. Before adverting to the factual scenario it would apt to consider the scope of interference by this Court in departmental matter.
6. Per Contra, Learned Government Advocate submitted that, the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of withholding two increments under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification and Appeal) Rules 1966. The entire procedure prescribed under the rules has been followed by the respondents and further submitted that looking to the charges leveled against petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed punishment. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that at every stage opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioner and as Charge No. 3 has been found partially proved whereas Charge Nos. 5 and 6 have been found proved and taking note of this fact the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual increments as per Rules of 1966 and after considering all the grounds and facts by the Appellate Authority dismissed the same and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 9 WP-705-2012 affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. Previous first charge sheet was issued 19th of August, 2003 and petitioner has submitted his reply on 15th September, 2003 and the supplementary charge-sheet has been issued after a delay of five months i.e. on 23.01.2004. Delay of five months have not been explained by the respondents. Again the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 20.03.2004 to the supplementary charge-sheet. The enquiry Officer has submitted enquiry report dated 21.08.2006 after a period of more than two years. Disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect issued on 22.11.2007. Petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 on 10.01.2008. The appellate authority quashed the punishment order holding that the enquiry was conducted arbitrarily, without giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and in contravention of the Rules and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry with the direction to conclude the same within three months by order dated 13.06.2008. Enquiry officer did not comply with the order passed by the appellate authority for completing the enquiry within three months. The enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 18.11.2009. This report was again submitted with delay of more than 1 year. Disciplinary authority/respondent No. 2 has took a long period of 13 months in passing the order pursuant to the enquiry report and after a delay of 13 months by order dated 31.12. 2010 respondent No. 2 inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect. Thereafter the Petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 10 WP-705-2012 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 24.01.2011. The appeal has been rejected by order dated 4.07.2011 after more than five months' time.
9. In the case of N. Radhakishan (supra), it has been held by the Supreme Court that even though no straight jacket formula can be laid down for deciding departmental proceedings within a fixed period of time, but it is held by the Supreme Court that the principle with regard to concluding the departmental proceedings at an earlier date has to be accepted as a rule of law and each case has to be evaluated on its own merit and a decision taken. It is indicated by the Supreme Court that the interest of administration and various other factors have to be taken note of and the delinquent employee has a legal right to have the departmental proceedings against him concluded expeditiously. It is held by the Supreme Court that he cannot be permitted to undergo mental agony, monetary loss and further loss in his career prospects unnecessarily due to prolonging of the departmental enquiry, that also due to no fault on his part. The following observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of N. Radhakishan (supra), in paragraph 19, may be taken note of.
1 9 . It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 11 WP-705-2012 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 employee has a right that disciplinary 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 the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings.
Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.
(Emphasis supplied)
10. This principle has been followed by the Supreme Court again in the case of P. V. Mahadevan (supra) and an enquiry initiated after inordinate delay has been quashed. In both these cases, the earlier principle laid down Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 12 WP-705-2012 by the Supreme Court in the case of Bani Singh (supra), wherein departmental proceedings were initiated after a period of 12 years was taken note and it is held that if inordinate delay in conclusion of a departmental enquiry remains unexplained then it is good ground to quash the entire proceedings as it acts unfair to a delinquent employee and cannot be upheld.
11. If the case in hand is analysed in the backdrop of the principle laid down in the cases, referred to hereinabove, it would be seen that the departmental enquiry commenced vide issuance of charge-sheet dated 19.08.2003.
12. In the case of State of M.P. v. N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
1 9 . It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the 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 employee has a right that disciplinary 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 the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 13 WP-705-2012 honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.
20. In the present case we find that without any reference to records merely on the report of the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, charges were framed against the respondent and ten others, all in verbatim and without particularising the role played by each of the officers charged. There were four charges against the respondent. With three of them he was not concerned. He offered explanation regarding the fourth charge but the disciplinary authority did not examine the same nor did it choose to appoint any enquiry officer even assuming that action was validly being initiated under the 1991 Rules. There is no explanation whatsoever for delay inconcluding the enquiry proceedings all these years. The case depended on records of the Department only and the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau had pointed out that no witnesses had been examined before he gave his report. The Enquiry Officers who had been appointed one after the other had just to examine the records to see if the alleged deviations and constructions were illegal and unauthorised and then as to who was responsible for condoning or approving the same against the bye-laws. It is nobody's case that the respondent at any stage tried to obstruct or delay the enquiry proceedings. The Tribunal rightly did not accept the explanations of the State as to why delay occurred. In fact there was hardly any explanation worth consideration. In the circumstances the Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated 31-7-1995 and directing the State to promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos dated 27-10-1995 and 1-6-1996. The Tribunal rightly did not quash these two latter memos.
13. In the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. Md. T.N. Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208
14 WP-705-2012
11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with 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 for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
14. In the case of Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar High Court of Delhi and Another reported in (2015) 16 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
24. One cannot dispute in this case that the suspension period was unduly long. We also find that the delay in completion of the departmental proceedings was not wholly attributable to the appellant but it was equally attributable to the respondents as well. Due to such unreasonable delay, the appellant naturally suffered a lot because he and his family had to survive only on suspension allowance for a long period of 9 years.
25. We are constrained to observe as to why the departmental proceeding. more than 9 years to conclude the departmental enquiry. No justification was forthcoming from the respondents' side to explain the undue delay in completion of the departmental enquiry except to throw blame on the appellant's conduct which we feel, was not fully justified.
26. Time and again, this Court has emphasised that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental enquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208
15 WP-705-2012 concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee.
27. As a matter of experience, we often notice that after completion of the inquiry, the issue involved therein does not come to an end because if the findings of the inquiry proceedings have gone against the delinquent employee, he invariably pursues the issue in court to ventilate his grievance, which again consumes time for its final conclusion.
28. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time-frame then efforts should be made to conclude within the reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.
15. In the case of State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Maran reported in 2021 (3) MPLJ 90, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
12. In this case, the sword of disciplinary proceedings kept hanging on the head of employee for almost eight years. Ultimately a small punishment of "Censure" was inflicted but its impact was very grave because his fate which was kept in the sealed cover by Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was sealed. The Constitution Bench judgment of Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225 was followed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 and it was held that broad principles laid down in Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra) will be applicable in cases of departmental proceedings also. It was poignantly held that principles relating to right of speedy trial founded upon Article 21 of the Constitution Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208
16 WP-705-2012 are applicable for departmental enquiry.
Unreasonable and unexplained delay in initiating, conducting and concluding the enquiry hits Article 21 of the Constitution.
13. In the case of M. V. Bijlani vs. Union of India, (2006) 5 SCC 88 the Apex Court interfered with the punishment because there was unreasonable delay in concluding the enquiry. The relevant portion reads as under
:-
"The Tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into consideration that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years and they continued for a period of seven years and, thus, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after such a long time evidently prejudiced the delinquent officer."
(emphasis supplied).
16. In the case of Sita Ram Verma v. State of U.P. reported in 2012 (3) ADJ 770, it is held as under:-
22. Supreme Court has time to time considered the effect of inordinate delay caused in conducting the departmental inquiry. In the case of State of M.P. v. Bani Singh and another, AIR 1990 SC 1308, the misconduct was of the year 1975-1977, while charge-sheet was submitted in the year 1987.
The Supreme Court has dropped the proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay in initiating the inquiry. In the case of State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SCW 1629, the misconduct was of the year 1987 while charge-sheet was submitted on 31.7.1995. In this case also, the Supreme Court has dropped the proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay in initiating the inquiry. In the case of M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India and others, (2006) 5 SCC 88, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 17 WP-705-2012 misconduct was of the year 1969-1970 and the charge-sheet was issued on 17.4.1975 and inquiry report was submitted in the year 1982. In this case also, Supreme Court dropped the proceedings due to inordinate delay in completing the inquiry. In P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, AIR 2006 SC 207, the misconduct was of the year 1990 and came to the notice of the department through audit report in the year 1994-95. The charge-sheet was issued in the year 2000 and Supreme Court found that there was inordinate delay in initiating of the departmental proceedings and accordingly dropped the proceedings.
23. Thus, from the aforesaid case laws, it is clear that delay in initiating departmental proceedings as well as concluding the enquiry, both are fatal. In the present case, the misconduct is of the year 1986-87 while the inquiry report was submitted on 27.6.2003. Impugned order on its basis was passed on 19.6.2006, i.e. few days before the completion of the age of superannuation.
17. In the case of Ashok Kumar v. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (CWP 11580/2017) decided on 25.09.2025, it is held as under:-
8. A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme court in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal 1995(2) SCC 570 Speaking through Justice"10. Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208
18 WP-705-2012 is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a process of balancing. Now, let us see what are the factors in favour of the respondent.
(emphasis added) A Two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Anr. 2015 CWP No. 958 of 2010 while speaking through Justice Abhay Maohar Sapre, made the following observations, "31) Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience,loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee. 32) As a matter of experience, we often notice that after completion of the inquiry, the issue involved therein does not come to an end33) Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 19 WP-705-2012 the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year."
(emphasis added)
9. Every delinquent employee has a legitimate right to have disciplinary proceedings concluded expeditiously. Undue prolongation causes mental agony, financial hardship, and social stigma, even before the charges are proven. This is considered a punishment in itself. When delay is abnormal and remains unexplained by the department, prejudice to the delinquent is presumed. The employee may suffer from loss of evidence, non-availability of witnesses, fading memory, and inability to defend effectively. While serious charges may warrant continuation, prolonged delay without justification tilts the balance in favor of quashing the proceedings.
10. The employer must conduct proceedings diligently and without unnecessary delay.
Protracted enquiries defeat the very purpose of disciplinary mechanism, instead of ensuring efficiency, integrity, and accountability they breed inefficiency, demoralization, and distrust in the system. A lack of seriousness in pursuing charges reflects poorly on the administration and may indicate malice or oblique motive the employer cannot be permitted to keep the sword of disciplinary action dangling over an employee indefinitely.
18. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, it is to be seen whether action of the respondents in conducting the enquiry for an unreasonable period of nine years and imposition of punishment of "withholding two increments with non-cumulative effect" thereupon can be a valid reason to deprive the petitioner from the fruits of promotion/ deciding the retiral dues from the last drawn salary as due to punishment order last drawn salary reduced by two increments.
19. The point raised by the petitioner deserves serious consideration. This is trite law that right to speedy trial and right of completion of inquiry Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 20 WP-705-2012 within reasonable time is flowing from Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. A Constituent Bench in A.R. Antulay & other vs. R.S. Nayak and others reported in 1992 (1) SCC 225, laid down the broad principles for conducting speedy trial. Though the said case pertain to criminal prosecution, the principles enunciated therein are broadly applicable to a plea of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as well (See: 1995 (2) SCC 570 [State of Punjab & others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal]). In Chaman Lal Goyal (Supra), great emphasis was laid for conclusion of inquiry in a speedy manner. It is observed that ultimately the Court has to balance and weigh the various relevant factors- balancing test or balancing process and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in the given case. It was further held that ordinarily speaking where the Court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of the accused has been infringed, the charges or conviction, as the case may be, will be quashed. It needs special emphasis that it is not the only course open to the Court to quash the charges. The Court may pass such other appropriate order as it finds just and equitable in the circumstances of the case. The doctrine of application of balancing process was relied upon in the case of Chaman Lal Goyal (Supra).
20. In catena of judgments, the Court have held that departmental inquiry should be completed within reasonable time. In nutshell, it was held that prosecution cannot be permitted to be converted into persecution. The reasons of delay in conducting the inquiry are solely attributable to the respondents. The inquiry normally should have been completed within a period of three months to one year from the date of issuance of chargesheet.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 21 WP-705-2012 The inquiry continued for an unreasonable period of nine years and during these nine years, the petitioner's fate was kept in the sealed cover. I find substantial force in the argument of the petitioner that if inquiry would have been completed within reasonable time, say within three months or one year,
21. As per forgoing analysis, in my considered opinion, the sword of disciplinary proceedings was unnecessarily hanging on the head of the petitioner for an unreasonable long time for no fault on his part. The question is whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, such unreasonable long inquiry and punishment can deprive the petitioner from the fruits of consideration for promotion/deciding the retiral dues from the last drawn salary (as due to punishment order last drawn salary reduced by two increments). In my judgment, it will be travesty of justice if petitioner is deprived from fruits of consideration on the basis of the punishment of "withholding two increments without cumulative effect" which was imposed after nine long years from the date of issuance of charge-sheet. If the matter is viewed from a technical point of view, during the pendency of inquiry and because of imposition of punishment on petitioner, if he was not promoted by the employer, no fault can be found in this action. However, in the peculiar factual matrix of this case this Court cannot shut its eyes and ignore the glaring fact that an inquiry for imposition of minor punishment which should ordinarily take about three months to one year, continued for nine long years and produced unwarranted result of deprivation from fruits of consideration for promotion. The smallest punishment of "withholding two increments without cumulative effect" became very severe for the petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 22 WP-705-2012 in the present case.
22. Apart from this, an unscrupulous departmental authority can adopt this modus operandi of issuing chargesheet for imposition of minor penalty to an employer just before the date of DPC and then keep the inquiry pending for a long period of time. During this period, employee will be unable to reap the benefits of consideration. After few years, a small punishment may be imposed, which on the face of it may look small but eventually result in severe deprivation in terms of career progression.
23. In such a situation, petition cannot be dismissed by adopting a pedantic approach. A need for justice oriented approach was recognized way back in Brihaspatismriti wherein it is mentioned that केवल शा मि य न कत य वनीशचय यु हने वचारे तू धमहािन जायते (See classical Law of India by Robert Singat published by Oxford University Press).
24. It means no sentence should be passed merely according to the letter of the law. If a decision is arrived at without reasoning and considering the circumstances of the case, there is violation of dharma. (See Page No.34 "Courts of India- Past to Present" published by Publications Division, Govt. of India).
25. In Aurangabad Electricals (P) Ltd. vs. CCE & Customs reported in 2011 (1) SCC 121 it was observed that "Technicalities should not defeat rendering of complete justice to a litigant". Similar view was taken by Benerjee, J in Kulwant Kaur vs. Gurdial Singh Mann reported in 2001 (4) SCC 262. It was observed that "Technicality alone by itself ought not to permit the High Court to decide the issue since justice oriented approach is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 23 WP-705-2012 the call of the day presently".
26. Thus, where injustice caused in apparent and writ large, the Courts cannot be silent expectators. It can mould relief and can ensure that injustice is eradicated. In many cases, Supreme Court has recognized this principle.
27. In AIR 1966 SC 81 [Dwarka Nath vs. Income Tax Officer], the Apex Court has held that this article is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Constitution designedly used a wide language in describing the nature of the power , the purpose for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised. It can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression "nature", for the said expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. It enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirement of this country. Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of Government to a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction defeats the purpose of the article itself.
28. In 1985 Supp. SCC 476 [ITC Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka] , the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 24 WP-705-2012 Apex Court opined as under:-
"The Court can mould its directions in order to give relief in a particular situation. Courts of today cannot and do not any longer remain passive with the negative attitude, merely striking down a law or preventing something being done. The new attitude is towards positive affirmative actions, directing people or authorities concerned that " thou shall do't" in this manner."
[Emphasis Supplied]
29. In 1995 (6) SCC 749 [B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India] , the Apex Court opined that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Article 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice, and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same can be ordered. Absence of provision like Article 142 is not material. Power to do complete justice also inheres in every court, not to speak of a court of plenary jurisdiction like High Court. The Apex Court considered the judgments of Dwarika Nath and B.C. Chaturvedi (Supra) again in (Badri Nath Vs. Govt. of T.N.) reported in 2000 (8) SCC 395 and laid down as under :-
"88. ......... we might emphasise that the power of this Court to mould the relief in the interests of justice in extraordinary cases cannot be doubted. In Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan such a power on the part of this Court was accepted by a three-Judge Bench. Madon, J. referred to the observations of Subba Rao, J. (as he then was) in Dwarka Nath v. ITO wherein the learned Judge explained that our Constitution designedly used wide language in Article 226 to enable the Courts to "reach justice Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 25 WP-705-2012 wherever found necessary" and "to mould the reliefs to meet peculiar and complicated requirements of this country". Justice Madon also referred to Rochester Corpn. v. R. R. v.
Revising Barrister for the Borough of Hanley Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and to a passage from Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 1, p. 59.
Finally Madon, J. observed: (SCC pp. 692- 93, para 20) "20. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the parties concerned, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion."
[Emphasis Supplied] Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 26 WP-705-2012
30. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court presided by the Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri S.S. Nijjar and Justice Shri Pinaki Chandra Ghose (as their lordships then were) in Association for Protection of Democratic Rights Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors (A.S.T. No. 205/2007) followed the aforesaid judgments of Supreme Court and opined that the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution can do complete justice between the parties. This Court followed the said view in AIR 2016 MP 86/2016 (1) MPLJ 474 [Little Angels Shiksha Samiti vs. State of M.P.] .
31. In the considered opinion of this Court, if departmental inquiry aforesaid would have been concluded within reasonable time, the petitioner's carrier progression in terms of grant of benefit of promotion/deciding the retiral dues from the last drawn salary (as due to punishment order last drawn salary reduced by two increments) would not be hampered. The punishment of "withholding two increments without cumulative effect", in this case would have been imposed much earlier than the date when petitioner was considered for promotion/ deciding the retiral dues from the last drawn salary (as due to punishment order last drawn salary reduced by two increments). Naturally, in that case, the said punishment would not have been a hurdle for the petitioner. This was the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry is completed within reasonable time. Since, the employer has failed to perform its duty which resulted into capricious and arbitrary results, in order to prevent injustice, this Court may itself pass an order or give directions which department should have passed or given had it Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 27 WP-705-2012 properly and lawfully conducted the inquiry {See: the underlined portion of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Badri Nath (Supra)}.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Umesh Pratap Singh Chouhan Vs. State of M.P., as reported in 2016 SCC Online MP 5961 , wherein it has been held as under :
8. In the matter of Prafulla Kumar s/o Laxminarayan Chaturvedi Vs. State of MP reported in 2009 (4) MPLJ 204 this court has considered the various judgments on the point and has held as under:-
7. It is the settled position in law that if there is inordinate delay in initiating the Departmental Enquiry and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in issuing the charge-sheet, then it would not be fair to permit the department to continue with the Departmental Enquiry. In the matter of The State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh (supra), the Departmental Enquiry initiated by serving charge-sheet in 1987 in respect of the incident of 1975-76 was challenged on the ground of inordinate delay of over 12 years, and Supreme Court held that:- "4. The appeal against the order dated 16.12.1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975- 1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987.
According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders an accordingly we dismiss this appeal." 8. In the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 28 WP-705-2012 matter of State of A.P. Vs. N.Radhakishan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154, the Supreme Court took the view that while examining the question of quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay all the relevant factors should be taken into account and disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after the delay, particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay and the Court has to consider the two diverse considerations i.e. the prejudice caused to the charged officer due to the delay and the fact that normally disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their own course as per relevant rules. The Supreme Court in this context in the matter of N.Radhakishan (supra) held that:-
"19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the 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 weight 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 employee has a right that disciplinary 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 the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delayed defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations."Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 29 WP-705-2012
9. Protracting disciplinary enquiry and keeping a government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned and for the mistake committed by the department in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the employee concerned cannot be made to suffer. The Supreme Court in the matter of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD.T.N.Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 held that:-
"11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with 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 suffering 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 for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer."
10. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sadashiv Shivram Garud and others vs. Food Corporation of India and others, reported in 2003(4) MPLJ 183, considered the same question in the background of the fact that the charge-sheet in that case was issued in 1999 for the grave misconduct committed in 1987- 88. The Departmental Enquiry was initiated after more than 10 years. The Division Bench of this Court held that:-
"9. Having found nothing against the appellants during investigation and having used them as prosecution witnesses, it is not understandable why the Corporation has been instructed to initiate departmental enquiry after more than 10 years, more so, in absence of any finding as to their statements by the Special Judge. The Corporation could, if it wanted, initiate the enquiry, when the lapse was detected, it did not do so. 10. Another face of the question is whether this Court can Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 30 WP-705-2012 interfere at this stage. The common threat running through catena of cases is where charge is serious and proveable by large number of documents and witnesses reasonable delay in completion of enquiry is excusable and time can be fixed to complete the same. While in cases of unexplained delay and charge is not serious, proceedings can be quashed. The Court can entertain the petition and quash the proceedings where there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating and completing the departmental enquiry. However, as said by the Apex Court in N.Radhakishan's case (supra), it is not possible to lay down any pre- determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Each case hasto be examined on the facts and circumstances of that case. The Corporation could initiate the enquiry during 1987-88 or within a reasonable time thereafter. It did not initiate it, which means it is doing it at the directions of the Central Bureau of Investigation. Under what rules/regulations this direction is issued, is neither here nor there. The Corporation failed to apply its mind independently, therefore, initiation of departmental enquiry against the appellants is grossly delayed. It is neither legitimate nor inconsonance with principles of justice and fair play, when seen in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellants could challenge the initiation and continuance of the departmental enquiry/charge- sheet against them at any stage, longer the delay in completing the departmental enquiry more the justification to challenge it. Conclusion that the petitions have been filed after three years, is unsustainable on facts and law.
10-A. The departmental enquiry puts an employee under great strain and stigma. It has serious repercussions on his family as well. Therefore, delinquent employee has a right that the disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously. He is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when the enquiry is unnecessarily initiated and prolonged without satisfactory explanation and without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. He is bound to be prejudiced in such an enquiry and constant strain and agony suffered by him cannot be compensated. Therefore, such an enquiry would in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
11. Thus, the settled position in law is that the Departmental Enquiry should be initiated without delay and inordinate delay without proper explanation for the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 31 WP-705-2012 same furnishes ground for quashing the same. It is also settled that the Departmental Enquiry once initiated should be completed expeditiously and long delay in completing the enquiry without proper justification can also be ground to quash the enquiry.
9. The common threat running in all these judgments is that if there is an inordinate delay in initiating the departmental enquiry and there is no sufficient and proper explanation for the delay, then the inordinate delay furnishes a ground for quashing the departmental enquiry
33. As per the appeal memo (Annexure P-12) petitioner has mentioned various facts and also mentioned the facts and grounds in the written submission that has not been considered by the respondent that even the allegations made against Mr. Kamal Patel/ local political leader, and against one Additional Commissioner who was posted as a Project Administrator in district Baitul in 2003 and that has not been denied by the respondent in their return. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in his petition that there is inordinate delay of conducting the regular departmental inquiry and imposing the punishment and departmental proceedings continued for seven long years (2003 to 2010) and petitioner has mentioned that the delay was caused due to the department/Respondents and this fact has not been denied by the respondent and even the respondents have not mentioned that delay was due to the petitioner. Admittedly, the departmental inquiry has not been concluded by the respondents and and they have not considered the direction issued by the State government by Circular dated 4-6-1997 and 10.03.1997 which provides for conclusion of departmental inquiry maximum within one year.
34. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed in the following manner:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 32 WP-705-2012
(i) The order dated 4.07.2011 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 31.12.
2010 (Annexure P/2) are quashed;
(ii) Respondents are directed to give all consequential benefits to petitioner;
(iii) Respondents are directed to give salary from 11.10.2003 to 5.02.2004;
(iv) The respondents are directed to release the two annual increments;
(v) The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for promotion on the post of Principal, Model School/Project Administrator/Assistant Commissioner and if found fit then grant him seniority from the date his juniors were promoted;
(vi) Respondents are directed to revise last drawn salary by including/adding two annual increments which has been deducted due to impugned order and issue revise PPO/GPO and revise all retiral benefits and pay arrears accordingly.
(vii) Respondents are directed to comply the aforesaid direction within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which Respondents are directed to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of realization till actual payment.
35. With aforesaid, petition is disposed of. All the pending I.As. are also hereby dismissed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32208 33 WP-705-2012 ar Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABDUR RAHMAN Signing time: 12/10/2025 5:30:08 AM