Time-bound disciplinary proceedings cannot continue after expiry of the Tribunal's deadline without extension; promotion relief followed.

A time-bound direction for completing disciplinary proceedings was treated as mandatory: where the department did not seek extension after the Tribunal's deadline expired, continuation of the charge memo was held unsustainable and liable to be quashed. Once that impediment fell away, the pending charge memo could not block the petitioner's promotion, and the promotional relief was affirmed. The text also notes that prolonged prejudice had been caused by the delayed proceedings, with no useful purpose served by keeping them alive, and that compensation was awarded as part of the final relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charge memo issued to the petitioner was maintainable after expiry of the time fixed by the Tribunal without seeking extension of time. (ii) Whether the writ petition seeking promotion was liable to be allowed in view of the pending charge memo.

Issue (i): Whether the charge memo issued to the petitioner was maintainable after expiry of the time fixed by the Tribunal without seeking extension of time.

Analysis: The disciplinary proceedings had been directed by the Tribunal to be completed within a fixed period. The Department did not seek extension of time even after the period expired and allowed the proceedings to remain pending for years. The Court held that where a competent forum fixes an outer time limit for completion of disciplinary proceedings, the authority is bound to comply with that limit or seek extension with sufficient reasons. In the absence of such extension, continuation of the proceedings beyond the stipulated period was impermissible.

Conclusion: The charge memo could not be continued and was liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition seeking promotion was liable to be allowed in view of the pending charge memo.

Analysis: Once the charge memo was found unsustainable for non-compliance with the Tribunal's time-bound direction, the only impediment to the petitioner's promotion disappeared. The Court also noticed that the petitioner had suffered prolonged prejudice because of the pending proceedings and that no useful purpose would be served by continuing them.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to promotion and the order granting such relief was affirmed.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary action was set aside for breach of the time limit fixed by the Tribunal, and the petitioner obtained relief in respect of both the challenge to the charge memo and the consequential claim for promotion, with compensation also awarded.

Ratio Decidendi: When a competent court or tribunal fixes a time-bound mandate for completion of disciplinary proceedings, the department must either comply within time or obtain an extension; failure to do so renders further continuation of the proceedings unsustainable.

---