S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the questions of fact and law in both the writ proceedings are overlapping, they were heard together, with consent of counsel for parties. In the first writ proceedings, namely, W. P. (C) 2832/2002, (hereafter "the first petition"),the petitioner claims the relief of payment of retiral dues/ gratuity and other amounts together with interest. In W. P. (C) 3669/2003 (hereafter referred to as "the second petition"), the relief claimed is for a direction to quash an order dated 19. 5. 2003, by which the Central government appointed an Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the charges against the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Chairman and Managing Director of the Cement corporation of India (hereafter called "cci"), in 1989. Upon expiration of his initial tenure, he was granted a further, extended tenure. The petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Chairman and managing Director, Airport Authority of India; it is an undisputed position that he was selected for the post on 11. 9. 1996. At the time of finalisation of the recruitment process, certain doubts and queries were voiced, to his candidature; as a result the matter was investigated; ultimately the Central Vigilance commission (hereafter called "cvc") by its order/letter dated 23. 5. 1997 denied vigilance clearance for the appointment. This led to the cancellation/withdrawal of the panel, prepared by the Public Sector Enterprises board in July 1999. The CVC advised for registration of case by the Central Bureau of investigation (CBI) and also initiation of departmental proceedings.

( 3 ) ON 24. 11. 1997, the Central Government issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner, levelling six allegations. The next date, it also complained to the CBI; a case was registered by the latter organisation. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W. P. (C) 3376/ 1998 challenging the issuance of the charge- sheet on the ground that the Central government had independent power to consider the facts and its decision to act could not be fettered by the opinion of the cvc regarding initiation of departmental proceedings; it had duty to consider all relevant materials. Another writ petition, namely, W. P. (C) 4794/1997 had been initiated, questioning the decision to cancel withdraw the panel for appointment to the chairman and Managing Director, Airport authority of India. A learned Single Judge of this court allowed both the writ petitions; w. P. (C) 3376/98 was allowed on 28. 7. 1999 whereas the W. P. (C) 4749/1997 was allowed on 5. 3. 2001. As a result, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, stood quashed; likewise the decision of the Central government cancelling the panel was also quashed.

( 4 ) THE judgment in both the cases was carried in appeal to the Division Bench, which by its common order dated 29. 5. 2002, disposed off the appeals. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the Single Judge ought not to have quashed the charge-sheet having regard to the circumstances. The division Bench held as follows:"we, are furthermore of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the respondents are directed to conclude the departmental proceedings within a time frame. They are directed to do so. In our opinion, departmental proceedings having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, should be directed to be completed within three months from the date of communication of the order subject of course to rendition of all cooperation by the first respondent. The inquiry officer who has been appointed may continue to hold the inquiry and if he is not available, another inquiry officer may be appointed within two weeks from date. The first respondent may file his written statement of defence within three weeks thereafter, whereafter the inquiry proceedings should commence and if possible the same should continue on day to day basis. We have no doubt that the inquiry officer and the disciplinary

Click Here to Read the rest of this document