it2025_00893 — After multiple past verifications of certificate of experience and absence of procedural flaws, reopening the issue after 15 years and initiation of disciplinary proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of unexplained and protracted delay

After multiple past verifications of certificate of experience and absence of procedural flaws, reopening the issue after 15 years and initiation of disciplinary proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of unexplained and protracted delay — The Applicant, promoted in 2016 as Assistant Director (Biology), received a show-cause notice in 2016 regarding allegations of false information about her experience. Despite this, fresh charges were... — Facts: In November, 2009, the Applicant was recommended by UPSC for the post of Senior Scientific Officer (SSO) (Biology), FSL Delhi. But, her selection was challenged in O.A. No. 3485 of 2009 by two unsuccessful candidates. The UPSC justified the selection and appointment process and thereafter, the Applicant was appointed in April, 2010. Subsequently, by judgment, dated 19-1-2011, the O.A. No. 3485 of 2009 was dismissed. Meanwhile, the Applicant's experience certificate from FSL, Manipur was verified by the issuing authority in 2011 and later affirmed by a fact-finding committee in 2015, confirming that the Applicant had the requisite three years of experience. Despite repeated verification, fresh complaints were filed in 2015 and 2016 alleging forged documents, though no adverse findings emerged. The Applicant was promoted in February, 2016 as Assistant Director (Biology). Pursuant to the complaint, dated 16-12-2015, Respondent No. 3 issued a show-cause notice to the Applicant on 1-8-2016. The Applicant submitted a reply, dated 29-8-2016, but no decision or response was communicated by Respondent No. 3. Subsequently, the Applicant received the impugned memorandum, dated 22-5-2024 on 13-6-2024 which is the subject matter of this OA. This memorandum also contained a charge memorandum, dated 24-4-2024, containing two articles of charges alleging wilful submission of false information regarding possessing requisite experience of 3 years in relevant field and accused the Applicant of misconduct under Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Learned senior Counsel for the Applicant argued that the matter had already been settled thrice in her favour and reopening it after an inordinate delay of 15 years is impermissible. Reliance was placed on the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., T.N. Housing Board [ (2005) 6 SCC 636 ], urging that the memoranda be quashed. The learned Counsel for the Respondents opposed the OA. He submitted that the Applicant lacked the requisite experience as per the notification and the charge memorandum is valid. Relying on the judgment of Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, [ Civil Appeal No. 2333 of 2007 ], he argued that the OA is not maintainable since the charge memorandum does not amount to an adverse order and does not infringe any legal right of the Applicant at this stage.