Disciplinary inquiry delay requires demonstrable prejudice; charge memorandum survives where competent authority validly considered the disciplinary proposal.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rule 14(24) of the CCS (CCA) Rules does not automatically invalidate disciplinary proceedings merely because an inquiry exceeds the prescribed period without a written extension. Its time prescription is directory because it specifies no abatement or invalidation consequence; intervention requires inordinate unexplained delay, demonstrable prejudice, mala fides, or oppressive proceedings. Deferred promotion during pending proceedings alone is not legal prejudice. Approval of a charge memorandum is valid where the competent disciplinary authority considered the proposal, vigilance advice and relevant records; unsupported allegations of mechanical approval are insufficient. Preliminary fact-finding during deputation is permissible, and judicial review at the charge stage remains limited to jurisdictional error, patent illegality, mala fides, or fundamental statutory violation.....