Delay in disciplinary proceedings can defeat fairness where unexplained lapse prejudices defence and records, especially in identical-charge parity.

Unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings is not automatically fatal, but it must be justified by the facts, the nature of the charge and any prejudice to the officer. On the stated facts, the delay from detection of the alleged irregularity to issuance of the charge-sheet was not satisfactorily explained, the objection had been raised at the earliest stage, and the lapse of time risked loss of records and faded memory. The Court also noted parity with another officer facing identical charges whose quashing order had attained finality. The process was therefore treated as unfairly prejudicial, and the Tribunal's order was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated after a long and unexplained delay, in circumstances where an identically placed officer had already obtained relief and the charges were similar, were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The Court held that delay in disciplinary proceedings is not fatal in every case, but the delay must be satisfactorily explained and assessed in the light of the facts, the nature of the charge, and the prejudice caused to the delinquent officer. On the facts, the explanation offered did not account for the long lapse from detection of the alleged irregularity to the issuance of the charge-sheet. The Court also noted that the respondent had raised the delay objection at the earliest stage and that the passage of time, loss of records, and faded memory would materially prejudice the defence. The Court further found that the respondent stood on no worse footing than the other officer against whom identical charges had already been quashed and whose order had attained finality.

Conclusion: The unexplained delay caused prejudice and violated fairness in the disciplinary process, so interference with the Tribunal's order was not warranted.

---