Stale disciplinary allegations and denial of records vitiated the enquiry despite valid initiation and charge-sheet.

A disciplinary proceeding was upheld in its initiation and the charge-sheet in the Governor's name was found valid, but the enquiry could not stand on stale allegations arising from a remote 1967 incident. The Court held that inordinate delay destroyed the necessary nexus, suggested lack of bona fides, and, together with refusal to supply requested records, denied a reasonable opportunity of defence. It reiterated that suspicion cannot replace proof in disciplinary matters and that natural justice must be observed. The challenge to jurisdiction and appointment of the enquiring authority failed, but the proceeding was vitiated to the extent it rested on the stale and procedurally unfair basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the common departmental proceeding, charge-sheet and appointment of the enquiring authority were without jurisdiction or otherwise invalid under the service rules; (ii) Whether the delayed initiation of proceedings on the basis of a remote 1967 incident and the refusal of requested documents violated natural justice and vitiated the enquiry.

Analysis: The common proceeding and the charge-sheet issued in the name of the Governor were upheld as valid, and the challenge to the authority and procedure of initiation was rejected. The Court found that the petitioner's conduct regarding blank ration cards was suspicious and unbecoming of a government servant, but it could not sustain the disciplinary action on that basis because the matter had not been proceeded with in time and had become stale by the time the 1975 charge-sheet was issued. The Court further held that the long delay created want of nexus and indicated that the proceeding was not bona fide. The refusal to supply the requested records was also treated as a denial of fair opportunity. The Court reiterated that suspicion cannot replace proof in disciplinary proceedings and that such proceedings must conform to the requirements of natural justice.

Conclusion: The initiation of the common proceeding was not struck down for want of jurisdiction, but the disciplinary action was vitiated to the extent it rested on the stale 1967 allegations and the denial of a reasonable opportunity, and that part of the challenge succeeded in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Rule was made absolute to the extent that the stale and procedurally unfair basis of the disciplinary proceeding could not be sustained, while no other infirmity in the proceeding was accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary proceeding may fail where a stale allegation is pursued after inordinate delay so as to destroy the necessary nexus and deny a reasonable opportunity of defence, because suspicion cannot substitute for proof and natural justice must be observed.

---