Delay in disciplinary enquiry does not automatically invalidate proceedings; courts have discretion to extend time for completion.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.-Heard Mr. Manu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abshishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. Brajesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. By means of this petition filed under article 226 of the constitution, petitioner has questioned two orders passed by competent authority of respondent-Corporation; first, the order dated 9th May, 2024 passed by respondent No. 2 placing the petitioner under suspension after reinstating him in compliance of earlier order of this Court dated 27th February, 2024 passed in Writ-A No. 1783 of 2024 and also the order dated 7th September, 2024 passed by respondent No. 4 whereby he has been directed to participate in the enquiry.

3. Two fold submissions have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, certified copy of the order of this Court dated 27th February, 2024 was duly served in the Office of respondent No. 2 on 5th of March, 2024 and yet no action was taken to reinstate petitioner immediately and the order came to be passed only on 9th of May, 2024 reinstating him and then placing him again under suspension taking aid of direction given by this Court under its order dated 27th February, 2024 to reinstate petitioner or even suspend petitioner in the discretion of the respondents during the pendency of enquiry, whereas according to Mr. Mishra, enquiry ought to have been concluded in all circumstances by 4th of April, 2024. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi v. New India Assurance Company Limited; 2014(6) ADJ 641, wherein the Court framed two questions as to whether once enquiry was directed to be concluded within a time frame fixed by the Court then it was open for the respondents to continue with the enquiry beyond prescribed period of time without seeking extension of time from the Court and, secondly; whether the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.N. Srivastava to the effect that if the enquiry was not concluded within the time frame fixed by the Court it stands vitiated, to be still a good law in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Chandra as well as a judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 27.7.2009 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1056 (SB) of 2009; Union of India and others v. Satndra Kumar Sahai and another, wherein the Court while answering the second question, observed that it all depends upon the facts of each case and it is in the discretion of Court to extend time for conclusion of enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that second order directing petitioner to participate in the enquiry is, therefore, also bad.

4. Meeting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Srivastava submits that once the Court has granted discretion to the authorities to place petitioner under suspension during enquiry, which was to be conducted under the orders of the Court, petitioner cannot complain of being placed under suspension by the order dated 9.5.2024. He submitted that as a matter of fact, petitioner was not responding to the call made to him to appear before Enquiry Officer so that enquiry could be completed within the time frame as prescribed by the Court. He further submitted that the delay has been caused because of some correspondence taking place between Western DISCOM and the Corporation at Lucknow. It is argued that it all happened due to inadvertence and not with any deliberate intention to hash petitioner. Mr. Srivastava has also placed reliance upon the observations made by the full Bench of this Court in the case of Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi (Supra) to assert that while answering both the questions, the Court had clearly observed that just for delay in conclusion of enquiry within the time frame provided by the Court, entire disciplinary proceedings cannot ipso facto ren