The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, considering the impact of delay on the employee's rights and interests.

JUDGMENT :

L. Mohapatra, J. - The Petitioner, who is working as Conservator of Forest in the Office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Orissa has filed this writ application challenging the legality of the order dated 28.8.2008 passed in O.A. No. 318 of 2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.

2. Case of the Petitioner is that while working as Conservator of Forest at Koraput Circle from November, 1995 to July, 2000, the opposite parties took a policy decision to convert uprooted trees to logs and fire woods and transport the same to the depots of Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., on the strength of permits. The policy decision also specifically provided that the salvage operation outlined therein does not cover timber logs originating from illicit failing of trees and prohibited falling. In terms of the policy decision, due care was taken to implement the same with the help of DFO. The Petitioner received some complaints and deputed his P.A., who is in the rank of A.C.F. on 11.5.2000 for verification along with the mobile staff of Jeypore Division but due to some reason, the team had to return back and submit a report on 15.5.2000. The D.F.O. thereafter was directed to cause inquiry in the field and submit a report within fifteen days. Since all the attempts in respect of inquiry on the complaint failed, the Petitioner himself went to the spot on 18.6.2000 along with other forest officials and after physical verification found that not only the dead dry and fallen trees were enumerated but also some numbers of standing trees had been cut. Entertaining a serious doubt with regard to conversion and having found some irregularity in implementing the policy decision, the Petitioner sent a letter indicating the persons, who are responsible for such illicit felling and cutting of the green and standing trees and also recommended for departmental proceeding against them. The said report was submitted by the Petitioner to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as well as the Government on 25.6.2000. After receipt of the report from the Petitioner, the Government directed some officers to enquire into the allegations of illegal felling of trees in the Jeypore Forest Division by M/s. Keshari Traders, R.M.P. engaged by O.F.D.C. for salvaging fallen/uprooted trees. A report was submitted by the team officials to the Government in 2.8.2000 but there was no allegation against the Petitioner. Thereafter the Petitioner was transferred to Bhubaneswar as Regional Joint Director in the Bhubaneswar Social Forest Project and while working as such, a memorandum of charge was communicated on 11.5.2001 and he was placed under suspension. The Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegations made in the memorandum of charge, but no action was taken to appoint the enquiry officer and proceed with the enquiry. The Petitioner finding no other way approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 429 of 2002 with a prayer for quashing of the memorandum of charge on several grounds. During pendency of the said Original Application, an additional article of charge was submitted against the Petitioner and reply was also given. The order of suspension was also revoked during pendency of the Original Application and he was reinstated in service with effect from 27.7.2002. The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application on 30th September, 2004 observing that it is concerned about the progress of departmental proceeding and directed opposite party No. 3 to complete the enquiry by holding day to day proceeding and submit the report by 31.12.2004. It was also directed that after receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority should take a final view in the matter within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the report. In spite of such direction of the Tribunal, the proceeding was not concluded and is continuing till today. In the meantime, because of th