The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that departmental proceedings cannot be allowed to linger indefinitely. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar made it clear that such delays violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and effectively place an employee in a state of “perpetual uncertainty and legal limbo”.Acting on a bunch of petitions against Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation and other respondents, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also quashed chargesheets and all consequential proceedings against retired employees. The bench in one of the matter noted that the competent authority failed to pass any order for nearly 13 years despite an inquiry report exonerating the petitioner being submitted on January 16, 2013.“Sword of disciplinary action cannot be kept dangling indefinitely”The court came down heavily on administrative inaction, holding that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to strict timelines as an essential facet of due process under Article 21. “Any procedure which does not ensure the culmination of disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable dispatch would fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The determination of guilt or innocence of the delinquent officer must be arrived at within reasonable dispatch, as it is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty…,” Justice Brar asserted.The bench further cautioned that prolonged uncertainty undermined fairness in governance and an employer could not be permitted to keep the sword of disciplinary action dangling over an employee indefinitely.13-year delay after inquiry report termed “legal limbo”On facts, the court recorded that the petitioner retired on April 30, 2011, and a charge sheet was issued just two days prior to retirement alleging loss of Rs 1.58 crore. Though inquiry proceedings concluded in January 2013 and the inquiry officer found the petitioner innocent, no further decision was taken thereafter.The court held that this inaction left the employee in an indefensible position: “He is neither exonerated nor penalised; he cannot challenge the findings, yet he continues to suffer the stigma of a pending proceeding. This indefinite state of ‘under cloud’ is itself a punishment without due process.”The bench added that such delay was not a procedural lapse but went to the root of validity. “This prolonged delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings is, in itself, sufficient to vitiate the entire proceedings,” Justice Brar observed.No jurisdiction after retirement without statutory backingAddressing a key legal issue as to whether disciplinary proceedings could continue after retirement, Justice Brar held it was strictly dependent on statutory authority or service rules. “The continuation or initiation of disciplinary proceedings post retirement… is contingent on the presence of an explicit statutory provision… Any notion of extending this authority post-severance cannot be sustained by assumption, legal fiction, or a mere ‘deeming’ provision without clear and unambiguous legal backing,” Justice Brar observed.The bench noted the respondent-federation lacked jurisdiction to continue disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner after retirement in the absence of any statutory or rule-based authority,Chargesheets quashed; full retirement benefits with interestAllowing the writ petitions, the court set aside the impugned charge sheets and all consequential inquiries arising from them. Justice Brar directed release of all retiral benefits within two months and also awarded interest. “The petitioners shall further be entitled to interest at 6 per cent to be calculated after one year from the date of retirement… till the date of its actual realisation,” the bench concluded.