High Court Quashes 11-Year-Delayed Disciplinary Proceedings Against Retired Engineer

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 81 | 2026:CGHC:5889

Feb. 02, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired Executive Engineer, holding that an unexplained delay of over 11 years in pursuing the enquiry caused clear prejudice and violated settled principles of administrative justice.

Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, allowing Writ Petition (Service) No. 2609 of 2019, quashed the State Government’s order dated 24 September 2018 appointing an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer against Satish Kumar Tiwari, who retired from the Water Resources Department on 31 March 2007.

The case arose from allegations of financial irregularities relating to works executed between 2002 and 2004. Although the State obtained the requisite sanction under the pension rules and issued a charge sheet on 31 August 2007, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply in March 2009 denying all allegations and asserting that the works were carried out strictly in accordance with the PWD Manual without any financial loss or misappropriation. Thereafter, the matter remained dormant for nearly a decade.

Two co-accused officers named in the same charge sheet were exonerated in 2008. Despite this, the State took no steps to appoint an Enquiry Officer or advance the proceedings against the petitioner until September 2018. During this period, 10 percent of the petitioner’s pension was withheld, even though the departmental enquiry had not commenced in substance.

The Court noted that the State’s reply was conspicuously silent on the reasons for this prolonged inaction. Relying on authoritative precedents of the Supreme Court of India, including State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan and P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board, the Court reiterated that disciplinary proceedings must be concluded expeditiously and that abnormal, unexplained delay defeats justice. Continuing such proceedings after long years, the Court observed, causes undue mental agony, reputational harm, and financial prejudice to the employee.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the 11-year delay in appointing the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer was wholly unexplained and attributable entirely to the State. There was no allegation or material suggesting that the petitioner had contributed to the delay. The Court further found that the continued deduction of 10 percent of pension violated the third proviso to Rule 9(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which mandates restoration of withheld pension if proceedings are not concluded within two years of institution.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 24 September 2018 and the departmental proceedings themselves. The State has been directed to restore and release all pensionary benefits withheld from the petitioner on account of the pending enquiry. No order as to costs was passed.

Case Reference : WPS No. 2609 of 2019, Satish Kumar Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others; Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sharad Mishra, Advocate; Counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer; Counsel for Respondent No. 5: Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate.