S.Nagasubramanian vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 29 August, 2017
6.Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strongly contend that the petitioner is an upright officer and he became the victim of circumstances. The learned counsel attempted to draw this Court's attention to various facets of the charges and the explanation offered by the petitioner. But this Court refused to go into those factual controversies. However, the learned counsel would alternatively submit that in the initiation and completion of the enquiry, there has been undue delay on the part of the authorities and therefore, the delay itself would constitute grave prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and as such, the impugned penalty is liable to be interfered with on that ground alone. Learned counsel would also rely on the decision of this Court in The Agricultural Production Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government and Another Vs. M.Sampath and Others (CDJ 2015 MHC 5217) and two other orders in W.P. (MD) No.12790 of 2009 and W.P.No.25971 of 2007 dated 18.12.2009 and 28.04.2011 respectively. In all these cases, this Court has held that inordinate and unexplained delay would by itself constitute a ground for quashing the disciplinary proceedings. This Court cannot have any quarrel over the said legal propositions as time and again this Court and Supreme Court have repeatedly held that initiation and completion of enquiry proceedings has to be gone through within a reasonable time frame and unexplained and inordinate delay in concluding the proceedings would by itself constitute a grave prejudice to the rights of the parties since the delay by itself would have adverse result of punishment being meted out on the employee concerned.