The Central Administrative Tribunal has delivered a significant ruling affirming that prolonged delay in departmental proceedings, even when parallel criminal proceedings are pending, violates the principles of natural justice and administrative efficiency. The quashing of a charge sheet issued over two years after the alleged misconduct underscores the judiciary’s insistence on timely resolution of disciplinary matters involving government servants.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Mukesh Meena, a Deputy Commissioner in the Central Goods and Services Tax Department, was accused of demanding illegal gratification totaling Rs. 30 lakhs from importers between August 2017 and April 2018. The allegations arose from a CBI investigation into a bribery conspiracy involving six customs officers at Nhava Sheva. The CBI registered a case under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B IPC on 29 April 2018.
Procedural History
- 11 May 2018: Applicant suspended following CBI arrest.
- 29 April 2018: CBI registered FIR based on complaint.
- 26 August 2019: CBI forwarded its report to Department of Revenue.
- 15 January 2020: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) issued First Stage Advice recommending major penalty proceedings.
- 9 December 2020: Charge sheet issued - over two and a half years after the alleged incident.
- 3 February 2021: Applicant submitted detailed reply to charge sheet.
- 3 June 2021: Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer appointed - without considering applicant’s reply.
- 6 July 2021: Suspension revoked.
- 30 July 2021 & 18 November 2021: Preliminary and second inquiries conducted.
- 27 December 2022: Inquiry Officer changed due to administrative reasons.
- January 2026: Tribunal heard arguments; documents demanded by applicant were only provided during pendency of the case.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought quashing of the charge sheet dated 9 December 2020 on grounds of undue delay, non-supply of prosecution documents, failure to conduct a common inquiry against six accused officers, and violation of time limits under Rule 14(24) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He also sought compensation and exemplary costs.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a disciplinary charge sheet can be quashed on grounds of unreasonable delay and non-supply of documents, even when a parallel criminal case is pending, and whether the six-month time limit under Rule 14(24) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is mandatory or merely directory.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel relied on Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. to argue that:
- The delay of over two years in issuing the charge sheet and nearly five years in concluding the inquiry violated the principle of reasonable time.
- The failure to supply relied-upon documents - held by CBI, NHAVA SHEVA, and NSPU - deprived the applicant of a fair opportunity to defend himself.
- The charges were vague, based on conjecture, and mirrored the CBI case without independent departmental investigation.
- Rule 14(24) mandates conclusion of inquiry within six months, and extensions require written justification, which was absent.
- A common inquiry was mandatory under Rule 18 since six officers were implicated in the same set of facts.
For the Respondent
The respondents contended that:
- The delay was attributable to the need to obtain documents from the CBI, which was conducting a parallel criminal investigation.
- The charge sheet is not an adverse order and cannot be challenged by writ under Article 226, citing Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayan.
- The disciplinary proceeding was initiated promptly after receipt of CVC advice and remains ongoing.
- Documents were eventually supplied during the pendency of the O.A., curing any prejudice.
- Simultaneous proceedings are permissible under law, and delay alone does not invalidate proceedings unless mala fide is proven.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal rejected the respondent’s reliance on Kunisetty Satyanarayan, distinguishing it on facts. While acknowledging that departmental and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously, the Court emphasized that simultaneity does not justify indefinite delay.
"Every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit."
The Court cited Prem Nath Bali to hold that a year is the outer limit for conclusion of proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances. Here, the delay exceeded five years, with no written justification for extension under Rule 14(24). The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s reply was ignored at the time of appointing the Inquiry Officer - a procedural flaw undermining natural justice.
The Court further relied on Capt. M. Paul Anthony, where the Supreme Court quashed departmental proceedings after acquittal in a criminal case based on identical evidence. The Tribunal observed that the charges here were not merely allegations but were directly derived from CBI evidence, which remained sub judice. The lack of independent departmental investigation and the vagueness of charges - particularly regarding the role of third parties - rendered the proceedings fundamentally flawed.
The Tribunal also held that the failure to conduct a common inquiry against six officers implicated in the same conspiracy violated the principle of consistency and efficiency under Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The piecemeal approach prejudiced the applicant’s right to a fair and expeditious hearing.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Tribunal quashed the charge sheet dated 9 December 2020, holding that undue delay, non-supply of documents, and procedural irregularities rendered the proceedings unsustainable. The Tribunal directed that all pending miscellaneous applications be deemed disposed of, with no order on costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Beyond One Year Is Fatal
- Practitioners must now argue that any disciplinary proceeding exceeding one year without written justification for extension is prima facie invalid.
- Departments must maintain internal timelines and document reasons for delays - failure to do so invites quashing.
- Delay cannot be excused merely because a parallel criminal case is pending.
Documents Must Be Supplied Promptly
- Failure to provide prosecution documents within a reasonable time violates Article 14 and natural justice.
- If documents are held by external agencies (e.g., CBI), the department must seek them proactively and not wait until litigation begins.
- Post-pendency production does not cure prior prejudice.
Common Inquiry Is Mandatory for Joint Allegations
-
When multiple officers are implicated in the same set of facts, Rule 18 of CCS (CCA) Rules mandates a common inquiry.
-
Separate proceedings against co-accused create inconsistency, delay, and procedural unfairness.
-
Advocates should raise this as a ground for quashing at the earliest opportunity.
-
Departmental authorities must initiate inquiries within six months of appointment of Inquiry Officer.
-
Written applications for extension must be filed and recorded - silent inaction is not an extension.
-
Vague charges based solely on criminal allegations, without independent verification, are legally unsustainable.
