Employer must seek an extension of time if the inquiry is not concluded within the time fixed by the Court, and the Court has the jurisdiction to extend the time in the interest of justice and public interest.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the Tribunal while deciding the Claim Petition No. 151 of 2011 quashing the earlier order of punishment dated 08.01.2011 and directing the opposite parties before it to conclude the inquiry or the disciplinary proceedings within three months of service of the copy of said judgment, the said judgment was challenged by the State before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 4147 (SB) of 2017 which was dismissed summarily on 22.02.2017. Therefore, the State was already aware of the judgment dated 31.03.2015 passed in the above mentioned claim petition as it had challenged the same before this Court and its petition was dismissed on 22.02.2017. However, the disciplinary proceedings were not completed within three months as ordered, not even from the date of passing of the judgment in Writ Petition by the High Court. Instead, the inquiry was completed on 17.09.2020, that is, almost five years from the date of judgment of the Tribunal and three years from the date of judgment of the High Court. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.10.2020 and the final order for punishment has been passed by the State Government in the name of his Excellency the Governor on 21.04.2022, that is, seven years from the judgment of the Tribunal and five years from the date of judgment of the High Court referred hereinabove.

3. The contention is that, this order is in the teeth of the full Bench decision of this Court in the case of 'Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi Vs. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. and others', Writ Petition No. 7179 (SS) of 2009.

4. The counsel for the State on the other hand says that the Full Bench does not bar the authorities from passing an order of punishment if the time period prescribed by a judgment of the Court or the tribunal has expired.

5. The contention of the State at this stage appears to be apparently erroneous in law.

6. Question no. (a) considered by the full Bench in Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (supra) reads as under:-

"Whether if an inquiry proceeding is not concluded within a time frame fixed by a court and concluded thereafter, without seeking extension from the Court then on the said ground the entire inquiry proceeding as well as punishment order passed, is vitiated in view of the judgment in the case of P.N. Srivastava."

The answer to the said question reads as under:-

"We hold that if an enquiry is not concluded within the time which has been fixed by the Court, it is open to the employer to seek an extension of time by making an appropriate application to the court setting out the reasons for the delay in the conclusion of the enquiry. In such an event, it is for the court to consider whether time should be extended, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, where there is a stipulation of time by the Court, it will not be open to the employer to disregard that stipulation and an extension of time must be sought."

7. On the face of it, the answer to question no. (a) is that if inquiry has not concluded within the time which has been fixed by the Court, it is open to the employer to seek an extension of time by making an appropriate application to the Court, setting out the reasons for delay in conclusion of the enquiry. These observations of the Full Bench clearly mean that two course of actions are open, one to drop the proceedings if the same are not concluded within the time prescribed by the Court/Tribunal, the other is to seek extension of time. The Full Bench has further stated that in such an event, that is, where extension of time is sought by the employer, it is for the Court to consider whether time should be extended, based on the facts and circumstances of the case. However, where there is stipulation of time by the Court, it will not be open to the employer to disregard that stipulation and an extension of time must be sought. This answer to question no. (a) is mandatory as is evident from the very