Stale disciplinary action and unfinalised complaints cannot justify denial of promotion or continuation of delayed proceedings.

Unexplained inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceedings can render the enquiry unfair and justify quashing of stale disciplinary action. The text also states that adverse ACR remarks and denial of promotion cannot rest on pending complaints or unfinalised disciplinary material; where no completed preliminary enquiry or final decision exists, such material should not be used to withhold selection grade promotion. A separate direction to consider promotion to the Super Time Scale was left undisturbed because no independent ground for interference was shown. The Tribunal's orders were therefore affirmed, and the respondent's challenge succeeded on all substantive issues.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the departmental proceedings and charge memo deserved to be quashed for inordinate delay; (ii) whether the adverse remarks in the ACR for 1979-80 and the withholding of selection grade promotion were sustainable; (iii) whether the Tribunal's direction for consideration of promotion to the Super Time Scale required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the departmental proceedings and charge memo deserved to be quashed for inordinate delay.

Analysis: The proceedings related to alleged irregularities of 1975-77, while the charge memo was issued only in 1987. The record disclosed no satisfactory explanation for the long delay. The Court held that it would be unfair to permit the enquiry to proceed after such delay and that the Tribunal was justified in quashing the proceedings.

Conclusion: The quashing of the departmental proceedings for delay was upheld in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the adverse remarks in the ACR for 1979-80 and the withholding of selection grade promotion were sustainable.

Analysis: The adverse entry was based on pending complaints that had not culminated in even a completed preliminary enquiry, and the respondent's representation against the remarks had not attained finality at the relevant time. The Court held that pendency or contemplated initiation of disciplinary proceedings, without more, could not justify denial of consideration for promotion and that the Screening Committee should not have relied on such unfinalised material. The Tribunal's grant of retrospective selection grade was therefore not shown to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's interference with the adverse remarks and grant of retrospective selection grade was sustained in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal's direction for consideration of promotion to the Super Time Scale required interference.

Analysis: No specific challenge was pressed against this direction, and no independent ground was made out for interference.

Conclusion: The direction regarding consideration for Super Time Scale promotion was left undisturbed in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal's orders were affirmed and both appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Unexplained inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, and reliance on unfinalised complaints or adverse material, cannot justify withholding promotion or permitting stale departmental action to continue.

---