Unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings can vitiate a charge memo when it causes prejudice to the employee.

In disciplinary proceedings, inordinate and unexplained delay in issuing a charge memo can justify quashing when it causes prejudice to the employee. Here, the alleged irregularity surfaced only after about ten years, and the explanation based on delayed audit was found unsatisfactory under the statutory scheme requiring annual accounts and audit. The Court balanced administrative discipline against the right to expeditious proceedings and held that allowing the enquiry to continue after such a long lapse would cause mental agony and hardship. The charge memo was quashed and the disciplinary proceedings could not continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge memo initiating disciplinary proceedings was liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay.

Analysis: The disciplinary action was initiated about ten years after the alleged irregularity, and the explanation offered for the delay was found unsatisfactory. The statutory scheme governing the Board required annual submission and audit of accounts, and the delay in surfacing the matter through audit did not satisfactorily explain the long lapse before commencement of proceedings. In matters of disciplinary action, prolonged and unexplained delay causes prejudice to the delinquent employee, including mental agony and hardship, and the court must balance the need for clean administration against the right to expeditious proceedings. On the facts, permitting the enquiry to continue at such a distant point of time was considered prejudicial.

Conclusion: The charge memo was quashed and the disciplinary proceedings could not be continued.

---