Unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings can be fatal when the department knew the allegations long before issuing charges.

An inordinate and unexplained delay of more than twelve years in issuing a disciplinary charge memorandum was held fatal to the proceedings. The allegations related to conduct in 2002-2003, yet the memorandum was issued only in March 2014, and the justification that the materials required careful scrutiny was found weak and unconvincing. The department was already aware of the alleged irregularities, and related CBI and DRI action had occurred in the intervening period. In the absence of any cogent explanation, the charge memorandum was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge memorandum could be sustained despite an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than twelve years in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.

Analysis: The allegations related to conduct in 2002-2003, but the charge memorandum was issued only in March 2014. The explanation that initiation of proceedings required careful scrutiny of materials was held to be weak and unconvincing. The record also showed that proceedings arising from the same allegations had already moved through CBI and DRI action in the intervening period, and the department was aware of the alleged irregularities long before the charge memo was issued. In the absence of any cogent justification, the prolonged delay was held to be prejudicial and fatal to continuation of the disciplinary process.

Conclusion: The charge memorandum was quashed and the writ petition was dismissed.

---