VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 358
(357)
Departmental action — delay in
723
No outer time limit can be prescribed for conclusion
of departmental proceedings; and quashing of the
proceedings not the only consequence of delay.
S.S. Budan vs. Chief Secretary,
1993 (1) SLR CAT HYD 671
The applicant, a member of the Indian Administrative service,
contended that an inquiry was initiated as early as 1983 and the same
was not completed by 10.06.91 and in view of the inordinate delay
the disciplinary proceedings are liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal observed that it is not possible in the very nature
of things and present day circumstances to draw a time limit beyond
which a disciplinary proceedings will not be allowed to go. In many
cases, the Government servant may himself be responsible for the
delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the
Government servant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own
wrong. In some cases, delays may occur for which, neither the
Department nor the Government servant can be blamed but the
system itself. Such delays too, cannot be treated as unjustifiable,
broadly speaking. Each case must be left to be decided on its own
facts and circumstances. It is neither advisable nor feasible to draw
or prescribe outer time limit for conclusion of all departmental
proceedings. It cannot also be said that the only consequence flowing
from the delay in the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is the
quashing of the said disciplinary proceedings.
(358)
(A) Misconduct — non-quoting of Rule
Where no specific rule covers the acts of
misconduct, a mere reference to the “General” rule
(Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules), which would cover
most acts of misconduct, cannot be considered an
indispensable condition.