The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a departmental inquiry is deemed to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued to the employee, not merely when an order is passed to begin proceedings. The ruling came in two connected writ petitions filed by retired Junior Engineer Narendra Singh, challenging delayed disciplinary action taken years after his retirement.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan of the Lucknow Bench in Writ-A No. 4265 of 2024 and Writ-A No. 6945 of 2024.
Background
Narendra Singh was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) on January 7, 1987, and retired from service on March 31, 2015. Allegations relating to work carried out during 2010–11 led the department to issue an order dated January 19, 2016, purportedly initiating departmental inquiry under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR). However, a formal charge sheet was served much later, on July 16, 2024 — more than nine years after his retirement.
Petitioner’s Argument
Advocates Manish Misra and Sarvesh Kumar Saxena, representing the petitioner, argued that the inquiry could not be deemed valid due to the substantial delay and failure to comply with the time limitation set under Regulation 351-A of the CSR. They submitted that the disciplinary proceedings would be legally considered initiated only when the charge sheet is issued — in this case, well beyond the four-year limitation from retirement or date of alleged misconduct.
The petitioner cited several Supreme Court decisions, including:
- Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109
- UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694
- Coal India Ltd. v. Saroj Mishra, (2007) 9 SCC 625
- State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha, 2024 LawSuit (SC) 1018
These decisions establish that departmental proceedings commence only upon issuance of a charge sheet.
Respondent’s Argument
Appearing for the State, Additional Chief Standing Counsel Pankaj Patel argued that the departmental inquiry was initiated on January 19, 2016, when the competent authority issued the order to proceed. He relied on Supreme Court rulings in DDA v. H.C. Khurana, (1993) 3 SCC 196 and Union of India v. Kewal Kumar, (1993) 3 SCC 204.
However, the Court pointed out that in H.C. Khurana, the Supreme Court had observed:
“The decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings cannot be subsequent to the issuance of the charge-sheet, since issue of the charge-sheet is a consequence of the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Framing the charge-sheet is the first step taken for holding the enquiry into the allegations…”
Court’s Observations
The High Court firmly held:
“The departmental inquiry would be treated to have been initiated from the date when the charge sheet is issued to the charged employee seeking defence reply.”
Justice Chauhan emphasized that the invocation of Regulation 351-A of the CSR must be tied to events occurring within four years of retirement. In this case, both the order to initiate proceedings (dated January 19, 2016) and the actual charge sheet (dated July 16, 2024) were beyond that permissible period.
He noted:
“The impugned order dated 19.01.2016 and charge sheet dated 16.07.2024 are patently illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, uncalled for and against the provisions of Regulation 351-A of CSR.”
On the inordinate delay, the Court quoted the Supreme Court in Bani Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh:
“There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage.”
Decision
The Court quashed both the order dated January 19, 2016, and the charge sheet dated July 16, 2024. It issued a writ of certiorari setting aside the impugned proceedings and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release all pending retiral dues, including arrears of pension, with 7% interest per annum within two months. Failing compliance, the interest rate shall be enhanced to 10% per annum on delayed payments.
The Court concluded:
“Since the departmental inquiry is treated to have been initiated w.e.f. the date the charge sheet is issued, the inordinate delay initiating the departmental inquiry in the present case would vitiate the entire purpose to conduct the departmental inquiry.”
Citation:
Writ-A No. 4265 of 2024 and Writ-A No. 6945 of 2024; Narendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Others
