‘Delay not enough’: Rajasthan high court clears way for disciplinary proceedings

JAIPUR: A delay of nearly five years in issuing chargesheet and two years in appointing an inquiry officer is not enough, by itself, to derail departmental proceedings, Rajasthan High Court held Wednesday while dismissing two petitions filed by a suspended state drug controller.

A single bench of Justice Anand Sharma rejected petitioner Rajaram Sharma's challenge to chargesheets issued against him over alleged irregularities in handling investigations into serious violations, including a case involving spurious drugs, as well as subsequent govt orders appointing an inquiry officer.


Sharma had argued that the delays vitiated the proceedings and that the chargesheets did not disclose any misconduct under the applicable service rules.

Justice Sharma ruled that delay would invalidate disciplinary action only if the delinquent officer demonstrates specific and measurable prejudice to the defence. The court noted that the allegations involved scrutiny of records of multiple firms and inter-departmental correspondence requiring examination at different administrative levels and found that no prejudice was pleaded or proved.

On the nearly two-year gap in appointing the inquiry officer, the court termed it an administrative step in continuation of the process and said it would not vitiate proceedings unless shown to be deliberate, mala fide, or resulting in denial of reasonable opportunity. The court said no such material was produced.

Rejecting Sharma's contention that the chargesheets disclosed no misconduct, the court held it could not conduct a mini-trial at the chargesheet stage and that it was sufficient if the imputations, taken at face value, indicated negligence, dereliction of duty, or failure to maintain devotion to duty and integrity expected of a govt servant.

The court dismissed both petitions and directed the disciplinary proceedings to be concluded expeditiously in accordance with law, while giving Sharma full opportunity of hearing and defence under the Rules of 1958.