1 2026:CGHC:22229 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4440 of 2022  K.S. Shrey S/o Late K. I. Shrey Aged About 63 Years R/o Jr. M.I.G. 33, Section 3, D.D.U. Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Through - C.M.D, Block 7, 2nd Floor, Office Complex Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Block 7, 2nd Floor, Office Complex Sector 24, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Manager (Procurement) Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Block- 1, 3rd Floor, Paryavas, Jail Road, Bhopal- 462011 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate and Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : None, though served Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2 12.5.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside / quash the enquiry order dated 25.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) whereby enquiry against the petitioner has been initiated and charge memo dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure P/4). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that no enquiry against the petitioner can be held for the lapses which were the subject matter in WP no. 1208/2001 (Annexure P/3). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the retirement benefits of the petitioner including gratuity, leave encashment and GIS within a period of 15 days; which has been wrongly withheld by the respondent authorities. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay an interest of 12% p.a. on the illegal withholding amount of retirement dues including gratuity, leave encashment and GIS from the date of superannuation; to the petitioner. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as deemed necessary as deem fit. 2) Facts of present case are that initially petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Manager under Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited in year 1984 and after bifurcation of State of Madhya Pradesh in year 2000 petitioner opted for and was allotted State of Chhattisgarh and he became an officer of Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. On 3 25.6.2001, a recovery order was issued against petitioner by Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited alleging shortage of 12,690.94 quintals of paddy from years 1996 to 2000 when petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager in District Raigarh. 3) Similar recovery orders were issued against officers and employees posted in various district headquarters and such orders were challenged by Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Adhikari-Karmchari Union by filing W.P. No. 1208 of 2001. The writ petition was disposed vide order dated 28.11.2001 directing Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation to make necessary inquiry against the petitioner and other similarly situated persons and issue orders of recovery, if they are found guilty. Hon’ble Court further directed that inquiry be concluded within period of five months from the first date of its proceedings. Notices were served on petitioner on 2.2.2017 and 4.3.2017 requiring his presence within 15 days. Petitioner was slated to retire on 30.6.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation but order dated 26.5.2021 (Annexure P/1) was issued by respondent No. 2 contemplating departmental inquiry against the petitioner. 4) Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially show-cause notice was served upon petitioner on 28.8.2001 which was duly replied by the petitioner on 17.9.2001 and the recovery orders issued against petitioner and other 4 similarly situated persons were assailed by Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Adhikari-Karmchari Union by filing W.P. No. 1208 of 2001 which was disposed vide order dated 28.11.2001 directing respondent No. 2 to conclude the inquiry against petitioner and similarly situated persons within period of five months from. She contends that despite the order passed in W.P. No. 1208 of 2001, no action was taken by the Corporation against the petitioner till 25.6.2021 and the order impugned has been passed on the verge of petitioner’s retirement which is illegal, arbitrary and same is in contravention to the well settled principles of service jurisprudence. She argues that order dated 26.5.2021 is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay alone as decision has been taken by the respondent No. 2 to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner after lapse of 20 years. She has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of P.V. Mahadevan Versus M.D. T.N. Housing Board1, State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Bani Singh and Another2 and UCO Bank and Others Versus Rajendra Shankar Shukla3. She prays to set aside the order dated 26.5.2021. 5) Per contra, Mr. V.R. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel appearing for Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited submits that petitioner caused loss to the Corporation amounting to Rs. 59,51,754.66/- therefore article of charges and show-cause notice 1. (2005) 6 SCC 636 2. 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 3. (2018) 14 SCC 92 5 were served to the petitioner on 28.8.2001 and inquiry was initiated in the year 2001 itself thus order dated 25.6.2021 is in continuation of the said proceeding. He contends that in year 2017, notices were served twice upon the petitioner to file reply to the show- cause notice and since relevant documents/ record were not available with respondent No. 2 therefore full-fledged departmental inquiry could not be initiated against the petitioner and other erring officers immediately after issuance of show-cause notice and article of charges. He argues that on account of delay alone, the departmental inquiry cannot be quashed. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Versus Akhilesh Jha and Another4, Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others Versus V. Appala Swamy5 and Anant R. Kulkarni Versus Y.P. Education Society and Others6. 6) There is no representation of behalf of Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited despite service of notice. 7) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record. 8) Admittedly, recovery orders were issued against the petitioner and other Assistant Managers on 25.6.2001 on account of shortage in 4. 2021 SCC OnLine 696 5. (2007) 14 SCC 49 6. (2013) 6 SCC 515 6 paddy procurement. Subsequently, show-cause notice and article of charges were issued to the petitioner on 28.8.2001 wherein specific allegation was made to the effect that petitioner caused loss to the Corporation amounting to Rs. 59,51,754.66/-. In response, Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Adhikari- Karmchari Union preferred W.P. No. 1208 of 2001 which was disposed vide order dated 28.11.2001. Hon’ble Court granted protection to the petitioner and other officers but at the same time reserved liberty in favor of Corporation to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner and conclude the proceeding within period of five months from the first date of the proceeding. It transpires that respondents No. 1 and 2 failed to conclude departmental inquiry within period of five months rather notices were issued to the petitioner on 2.2.2017 and 4.3.2017 whereas final decision to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner was taken on 25.6.2021. 9) It is apparent that respondent No. 2 remained in the lurch for long 20 years to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated in the return that in absence of relevant documents, full fledged departmental inquiry could not be initiated against the petitioner within the stipulated time frame. Undisputedly, delay in conclusion of departmental inquiry is always not fatal to the department and on account of delay alone, a proceeding of departmental inquiry cannot be quashed. But at the same time, the issue of prejudice caused to the delinquent 7 employee has to be considered by the Courts to keep balance between the loss caused to the department and interest of an employee. 10) In P.V. Mahadevan (supra), the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in the year 2000 for irregularities committed in the year 1990 which came to the notice of the disciplinary authority on the basis of the Audit report 1994-1995. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the explanation for delay cannot be accepted. At paragraph 11 it was observed as under: 11.Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing this respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary inquiry against a government employee would, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the inquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer." 8 11) In Bani Singh (supra), noticing that the irregularities which formed the subject matter of the inquiry, were said have taken place within 1975-1977 and that it being not the case of the department that it was not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and that it came to know of the irregularities only in year 1987, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, finding that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo, held that it would be unfair to permit the departmental inquiry to be proceeded with at that stage. 12) In Rajendra Shankar Shukla (supra), in absence of any explanation for the unexplained delay, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that though some internal discussions were going on within bank, the fact that it took the bank 7 years to make up its mind, is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. Hon'ble Supreme Court also noted that despite discussions that were going on in the bank, the employee was allowed to cross the efficiency bar and if the Bank was serious about proceeding against the employee for misconduct, it would not have granted him the benefit of being placed in a higher category or crossing the efficiency bar. Taking serious note of the issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Bank with cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to the employee. 13) In Akhilesh Jha (supra), The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that every delay in conducting a disciplinary inquiry does not, ipso 9 facto, lead to the inquiry being vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is inquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be demonstrated to have been caused and it cannot be a matter of surmise. On consideration of material facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal quashing the charge-sheet and which was affirmed by the High Court, holding that no prejudice was caused to the employee by reason of delay of three years in concluding the inquiry. 14) In V. Appala Swamy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- 12. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefor. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are: (1) where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee; (2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee. Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the inquiry officer. 15) In Anant R. Kulkarni (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :- 14.The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental inquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of 10 disciplinary proceedings, as such power is dehors the limits of judicial review. In the event that the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show- cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by the court. The same principle is applicable in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question must be carefully examined taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of the charges involved therein. The court has to consider the seriousness and magnitude of the charges and while doing so the court must weigh all the facts, both for and against the delinquent officers and come to the conclusion which is just and proper considering the circumstances involved. The essence of the matter is that the court must take into consideration all relevant facts, and balance and weigh the same, so as to determine, if it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest administration that the said proceedings are allowed to be terminated only on the ground of delay in their conclusion. 16) Bearing in mind the principles laid down in the above judgments, we will now advert to the facts of the case. 17) Article of charges and show-cause notice were issued on 28.8.2001. Petitioner filed reply to said show-cause notice and denied its contents in reply dated 17.9.2001. W.P. No. 1208 of 2001 was disposed vide order dated 28.11.2001 and direction was issued to respondent authorities to conclude the departmental proceedings within period of five months but respondent authorities remained in a state of slumber for 20 years and failed to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner. However, notices were 11 served upon the petitioner in year 2017 but Corporation did not make any further progress. Pertinently, the order impugned contemplating departmental inquiry was passed merely five days prior to retirement of petitioner. In the return, respondents No. 1 and 2 have explained that departmental inquiry could not be initiated against the petitioner at earlier point of time in absence of relevant documents. 18) In my considered view, respondent Corporation failed to justify the delay of 20 years in initiating the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. With regard to prejudice, petitioner who is now a retired individual has been subjected to a departmental inquiry merely five days prior to his retirement alleging the irregularities committed by him way back in the years 1996 to 2000. Furthermore, the order impugned dated 25.6.2021 has civil consequences and if an inquiry is initiated at this stage, it would hugely hamper the petitioner’s right of enjoying his retiral dues. 19) In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that the authorities of Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited could not justify the inordinate delay of 20 years. In result, the order dated 25.6.2021 ( Annexure P/1) being not sustainable in the eyes of law is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 12 20) Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited is directed to sanction and disburse the remaining retiral dues, if any, admissible to the petitioner at the earliest. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.05.14 11:09:12 +0530