Inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings can violate natural justice and justify quashing a stale charge memorandum.

Disciplinary charge memoranda issued after extraordinary and unexplained delay may be quashed where the delay is likely to prejudice the employee's defence. The Delhi High Court applied the settled factors governing stale disciplinary action-length of delay, nature of the charge, the explanation offered, and resulting prejudice-and found that a memorandum issued more than thirteen years after the underlying transaction was unjustified. The department had already investigated the matter and retained relevant records, so the claim that it was awaiting originals or certified copies was untenable. The delay was held to impair a reasonable opportunity of defence and to violate natural justice, and the disciplinary proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary charge memorandum issued after an abnormal lapse of time was liable to be quashed for unexplained delay and resulting prejudice to the employee.

Analysis: The challenge concerned a charge memorandum issued more than thirteen years after the underlying transaction and long after the department had knowledge of the relevant facts and records. The available material showed that the department had already investigated the matter, retained photocopies of the shipping bills, and had even proceeded to final adjudication against the exporter. The explanation that originals or certified copies were awaited was found to be untenable, since the department had its own copies and no real impediment prevented timely initiation of proceedings. Applying the settled law that delay is not assessed by any rigid formula but by weighing the length of delay, the nature of the charge, the explanation offered, and the prejudice likely to be caused, the Court held that the delay was extraordinary, unexplained, and unjustified. It further held that such delay would by itself impair the employee's ability to defend and would amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity and violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The charge memorandum and disciplinary proceedings were rightly quashed for inordinate and unexplained delay causing prejudice to the employee.

---