JUDGMENT : The petitioners were the employees of Prisons Directorate under Home (Jail) Department and while serving as Deputy Superintendent/UDC/Jailor/Office Superintendent all stood retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2016/30. 11.2014/31.01.2016/31.12.2015 facing a joint inquiry pending for an abnormal delay which is not attributable to either of the petitioner-delinquent and have prayed for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings and for release of their retiral benefits which has been withheld in view of Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 2. With consent of the parties, the facts are being noticed from WP(C) No. 1174/2016. 3. The petitioner joined service on 16.07.1980 as a Sub-Jailor under the Prisons Directorate, Government of Tripura and while in service got promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent. The other petitioners also joined service under the Prisons Directorate and were holding the post of UDC/Jailor/Office Superintendent. While in service, a memorandum along with a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 dt. 10.11.2009 came to be served for a joint inquiry with one common allegation. I consider it appropriate to quote the extract of the article of charge framed against the petitioner, which reads as under : “STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST (I) SRI SUBODH SARKAR, SUPERINTENDENT IN-CHARGE, CENTRAL JAIL, AGARTALA, (II) SRI UTSA DEBBARMA, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT, PRISONS DIRECTORATE, AGARTALA, (III) SRI GOPAL CHAKRABORTY, SUB-JAILOR (NOW JAILOR), CENTRAL JAIL, AGARTALA AND (IV) SRI RATAN DEY, LDC, (NOW UDC), PRISONS DIRECTORATE, AGARTALA. Article-I That the said (I) Sri Subodh Sarkar, (ii) Sri Utsa Debbarma, (iii) Sri Gopal Chakraborty and (iv) Sri Ratan Dey, while functioning as (a) I/C, Superintendent Central Jail, Agartala, (b) Office Superintendent, Prisons Directorate, (c) Sub-Jailor, Central Jail, Agartala and LDC, Prisons Directorate respectively a Committee was constituted under the Memo No. F.II-193/IGP/2001/4439-43 dated 25.08.2006 of the Prisons Directorate for taking physical measurement and endurance test in connection with the recruitment against vacant post of Jail Warders (Male and Female) in which said Sri Subodh Sarkar was the Chairman and said Sri Utsa Debbarma, Sri Gopal Chakraborty and Sri Ratan Dey were the Members. The said Chairman and all the Members of the said Committee recorded the measurement of one Babul Rudra Paul (Roll No. 2831) as ‘qualified’ for the post of Warder although Sri Rudra Paul does not have the required minimum height of 167.64 cm. The said Chairman and all the Members of the said Committee recorded the measurement of one Babul Rudra Paul (Roll No. 2831) as ‘qualified’ for the post of Warder although Sri Rudra Paul does not have the required minimum height of 167.64 cm. to be eligible for the post of Warder. Such willful wrong recording of height of Sri Rudra Paul has led to his final selection for the post of Warder and accordingly, he was appointed to the post of Warder. Such act of said Sri Subodh Sarkar, Sri Utsa Debbarma, Sri Gopal Chakraborty and Sri Ratan Dey amounts to gross misconduct and negligence of duties and violative of provisions of rule 3 of Tripura State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.” 4. After one year of the charge sheet came to be served upon the petitioners dt.10.11.2009, vide order dt.03.11.2010 Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries was appointed as inquiry officer to enquire into the alleged charge framed against the petitioner-delinquent but no progress in the inquiry has taken place thereafter and the disciplinary authority vide its subsequent order dt. 14.06.2012 appointed Dr. K.D. Sinha, Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries as inquiring authority to enquire into the charge framed against the petitioners-delinquent. 5. The inquiry officer in the course of the proceedings after granting enormous adjournments to the presenting officer in its order sheet dt.19.06.2013 observed that under the standing orders of the GA(AR) Department, the directive is to complete the inquiry within six months but due to absence of the presenting officer and prosecution witnesses disposal of the case has become impossible and accordingly the inquiry officer returned the case file to the disciplinary authority closing the inquiry. 6. After almost one year of inquiry being closed by the inquiry officer under its order dt.19.06.2013, by subsequent order dt. 05.06.2014 the disciplinary authority appointed a new presenting officer to proceed with the inquiry and from the counter affidavit which has been filed by the respondents it emerged that on 31.05.2016 it was listed before the inquiring authority for arguments, almost two years have rolled thereafter, either of the counsel is not aware of the fate of pending departmental inquiry which has consumed almost nine years and could not reach to any conclusion. The consistent directives of the State Government, one of which has been placed for perusal dt.24.03.1994 directing the concerned disciplinary authorities to complete the departmental proceedings preferably within a period of six months, and in any case it should not exceed nine months. 7. Here, in the instant case, departmental proceedings are pending for almost nine years and the incident is of twelve years ago and it is not the case of the respondents that the delay in any manner is attributable to either of the petitioner-delinquent. Even the correspondence which has been placed on record clearly indicates that there is a sheer negligence of the respondents in prosecuting the inquiry and the presenting officer took enormous adjournments. How much agony is being faced by the petitioners-delinquent for a long delay of nine years pending disciplinary proceedings can be noticed by this Court and each of them has retired from service during the period of November, 2014 to March, 2016, and because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings the retiral benefit including gratuity has been withheld by the respondents under Rule 69 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and that is the cause of complaint of the petitioners invoking jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings and for release of the retiral benefits, which has been withheld by the respondents because of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against them. 8. The submission of the petitioners’ counsel in substance is that delay in pending disciplinary proceedings is not attributable to the petitioner-delinquents but they are the victims and real sufferers and for such abnormal delay there is no explanation tendered by the respondents in their counter affidavit and delay in itself vitiates the disciplinary proceedings, particularly when the nature of allegation is in itself very superficial. The committee was constituted to interview the candidates and as regard the physical measurement is concerned it is to be examined by the experts, and even if the allegation levelled against the petitioners is taken on its face value, it may be an error in judgment but cannot be said to be a misconduct for which a charge sheet has been served and remain pending for almost nine years and the disciplinary authority is not even serious in pursuing the charges alleged against the petitioner-delinquent. In the given facts & circumstances, delay has caused great prejudice to the petitioner-delinquent and the pending disciplinary proceedings deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 [State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan] and (2005) 6 SCC 636 [P.V. Mahadevan v. Md. T.N. Housing Board] and the recent judgment decided by the Apex Court on 16.12.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 958/2010 [Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.]. 10. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the only justification tendered by the respondents is that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner-delinquent and pending disciplinary proceedings the authority is well within its competence to withhold the retiral benefits including gratuity and taking note of the charge levelled against the petitioners where recommendation has been made of one individual who was not eligible as he was not having the minimum height prescribed under the rules. This is a grave misconduct being committed by the members of the committee and counsel further submits that let the Court may direct the authority to conclude the inquiry within the time schedule which this Court considers it appropriate and further submits that the petitioner-delinquents have adopted this indirect route to avoid the procedure to be followed prescribed under the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 and any order if passed by the disciplinary authority on conclusion of the departmental inquiry is appealable u/R.23 of the Rules and to overcome the punishment, if any inflicted they may approach this Court by filing a petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court u/Art.226 of the Constitution. 11. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 12. It is not disputed that the petitioners have served in various capacities as Deputy Superintendent/UDC/Jailor/Office Superintendent and stood retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and each one of them is getting a provisional pension and their retiral benefits including gratuity has been withheld by the respondents u/R.69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The committee was constituted under Memo. The committee was constituted under Memo. dt.25.08.2006 in connection with the recruitment against vacant post of Warder of which the petitioner was the chairman and others were members of the committee and one candidate, Babul Rudra Paul who was not qualified to the post of Jail Warder failed to meet the required minimum height of 167.64 cm, because of their negligence as alleged placed in the final select list, and this according to the respondents is a gross misconduct and dereliction of duty being committed by each of the petitioner being a member of the committee which was a violation of R.3 of the Tripura State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. 13. The fact from the allegation as alleged clearly indicate that the recommendation if any being made by the committee was in the month of August, 2006 and almost after three years a memorandum along with the article of charge was jointly served upon the petitioners on 10.11.2009 and it was a matter of record that what was the height of the candidate, Babul Rudra Paul and what was the procedural error, if any being committed by the members of the committee & the job entrusted to them, but to conclude the alleged allegation the respondents consumed almost nine years and still could not reach to any conclusion. 14. After one year of service of a memorandum dt. 10.11.2009 vide order dt.03.11.2010 the inquiry officer was appointed but it appears that he did not proceed even an inch further and after two years, the disciplinary authority wake up and changed the inquiry officer vide order dt.14.06.2012 and from the record of the disciplinary proceedings extract of which has been placed on record as Annexure-P/5 reveals that the presenting officer failed to attend the disciplinary proceedings for almost consistent twelve hearings despite prior information being sent to the presenting officer to record the statement of the prosecution witnesses. At the last, the inquiry officer constrained to record its order and decided to return the case file to the disciplinary authority closing the inquiry as reveals from the note sheet of the inquiry officer dt. 19.06.2013. I consider it appropriate to quote the extract of the order dt. 19.06.2013 passed by the inquiry officer to return the case file to the disciplinary authority closing the enquiry which reads as under : “19-06-2013 No. Case 219/INQ/Jail/2011. PO is absent without any step. 19.06.2013. I consider it appropriate to quote the extract of the order dt. 19.06.2013 passed by the inquiry officer to return the case file to the disciplinary authority closing the enquiry which reads as under : “19-06-2013 No. Case 219/INQ/Jail/2011. PO is absent without any step. AOs are present along with their Defense Assistant. As per earlier order, date was fixed for examination of PWs. NO pw is present. Record shows that Sri Tarun Debbarma, TCS, Gr-II Presenting Officer of the case has been absenting habitually on many date i.e. 28-02-2011, 11-05-2011, 29-09-2011, 10-11-2011, 02-03-2012, 26-03-2012, 18-04-2012, 14-05-2012, 03-11-2012, 04-01-2013, 18-04-2013 and 19-06-2013 without any step or prior information. It is quite evident that the Presenting Officer takes no interest in the case, he is reluctant and non-cooperative in participating to the inquiry. Lot of chances have been given to the PO for disposal of the inquiry and even the absence of the PO has been brought to the notice of Disciplinary Authority but it is found without of any use. I do not feel necessity to retain the proceeding file here idly and do not want to drag the case for indefinite period merely on the ground of absence of Presenting Officer and Prosecution witnesses. There is a standing order of the GA(AR) Department to complete the inquiry process within six months but due to absence of the PO and Prosecution witnesses early disposal of the case has become impossible. Hence, I have decided to return the case file to the Disciplinary Authority closing this inquiry in this court. Send one copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, GA(AR) department for kind information and taking appropriate action.” 15. After the record of inquiry being sent by the inquiry officer, as reveals from the note sheet dt. 19.06.2013, after one year the new presenting officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority vide order dt.05.06.2014 and four years have rolled thereafter and still the inquiry officer has not reached to a final conclusion and one of the reference letter which has been placed by the respondents on record as Annexure-R/1 dt.31.05.2016 indicates the inquiry is pending for arguments. 19.06.2013, after one year the new presenting officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority vide order dt.05.06.2014 and four years have rolled thereafter and still the inquiry officer has not reached to a final conclusion and one of the reference letter which has been placed by the respondents on record as Annexure-R/1 dt.31.05.2016 indicates the inquiry is pending for arguments. Even after more than two years have rolled by, still the inquiry officer has not reached to any conclusion and because of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner-delinquents, all of them stood retired from service and each of them have been paid provisional pension and their retiral benefits to which they are legitimately entitled for including gratuity have been withheld because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 69 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. More so, it is not the case of the respondents that the abnormal delay in the disciplinary proceedings either way is attributable to the petitioners-delinquent. 16. There are directives issued by the respondents, one of which reference has been made dt.24.03.1994 mandating to all the disciplinary authorities that in case the departmental proceedings are pending it should be completed preferably within a period of six months and in any case it should not exceed nine months and the object was that the delay in disposal of the departmental proceedings not only affect the interest of the employee concerned but also affect the interest of the government and it is imperative that the disciplinary matters should be dealt with on utmost priority. How the directives of the government are being blatantly flouted by the disciplinary authorities and the instant matter is the eye opener how the directives of the government are being carried out by the officers. 17. Indisputably, the allegations in the disciplinary enquiry are not of adopting malpractices or charge of corruption or misappropriation of funds or any financial loss being caused to the government in discharge of their official duties. 17. Indisputably, the allegations in the disciplinary enquiry are not of adopting malpractices or charge of corruption or misappropriation of funds or any financial loss being caused to the government in discharge of their official duties. The allegation against the petitioners as the chairman and member of the committee is that they failed to measure the height of one of the candidate as per the standards laid down and recommended his case for appointment as a Warder and this in the opinion of this Court may be an error in judgment but not a case of a gross misconduct for which an inquiry was initiated for the incident of November 2006 in November 2009 and to keep it pending for almost nine years depriving the petitioner-delinquents of their legitimate right being conferred for release for their retiral benefits due and payable on retirement but remain withheld because of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings for a sufficient long time and the abnormal delay has certainly caused a great prejudice to the petitioner-delinquents for which either of the petitioner is not at fault but indeed a victim for the fault of others having no accountability. 18. The Apex Court has examined the very issue in the judgment reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 [State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan]. I consider it appropriate to quote para 19 of the judgment which reads as under : “19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.” 19. It has been further considered in (2005) 6 SCC 636 [P.V. Mahadevan v. Md. T.N. Housing Board] where the delay was of more than ten years. I consider it appropriate to quote para 7 of the judgment which reads as under : “7. The very same ground has been specifically raised in this appeal before this Court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedings as made in the writ petition.” 20. In the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 958/2010 [Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr.] while dealing with the matter of a disciplinary proceedings and taking note of the abnormal delay being caused by the disciplinary authority which caused great prejudice to the delinquent because of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings observed in para 33 that departmental inquiry once initiated against the delinquent employee it must be concluded. The sincere efforts should be made to conclude the proceedings within six months as an outer limit, where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year. 21. Indeed, the delay in the present case has also caused a great prejudice to the petitioner-delinquents and such abnormal delay is not attributable to either of the petitioner-delinquents but they are the real victims for the fault of others because of a pending departmental proceedings initiated against them which deprived them of their legitimate retiral benefits due and payable on retirement and facing trauma of a disciplinary inquiry for almost nine years, although the incident relates to of November 2006, almost twelve years have rolled by and the petitioners suffered more than enough on account of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and each of them has faced a mental agony and sufferings due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings which is much more than a punishment, if any, found to be guilty at a later stage, and in the opinion of this Court such abnormal delay has caused great prejudice to the petitioner-delinquents and deserves to be interfered by this Court. 22. Consequently, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner-delinquents pursuant to memorandum dt. 10.11.2009 (Annexure-P/2) are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioners be entitled to all the retiral benefits which are admissible and payable under the law with interest @9% from the date it became due until actual payment. The retiral benefits shall be released within two months from today. No costs.