The delay in initiating the Departmental Enquiry without proper explanation and the violation of relevant rules in ordering a de novo enquiry provided grounds for quashing the charge-sheet and the pending Departmental Enquiry.

JUDGMENT : 

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the charge-sheet and also the disciplinary proceedings pending against him.

2. Brief facts are that the petitioner during the relevant time, was working as Assistant Engineer in the Respondents Department. He was served with the charge-sheet dated 30.7.1998 containing the charges relating to the period 1987 to 1989. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet denying the charges. The enquiry proceedings took place before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted Enquiry Report dated 24.06.2002 holding that none of the charge against the petitioner was proved. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 15.01 .2004 rejected the Enquiry Report and directed the Enquiry Officer to conduct de novo enquiry. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer but the enquiry did not proceed further in the absence of production of record and the witnesses by the Presenting Officer. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging the charge-sheet as well as the entire disciplinary proceedings. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 28.02.2007 and his pensionary dues were paid.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed since it has been issued after an inordinate delay of about 10 years. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Bani Singh and another, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308. He further submitted that in the Enquiry submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 24.06.2002, the petitioner was exonerated from all the charges and if the Disciplinary Authority was not agreeing with the Enquiry Report, he could have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner giving the reason for disagreement and pass appropriate order after hearing the petitioner but he could not have ordered for de novo enquiry which is not permissible under the relevant Service Rules applicable to the petitioner. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of K.R. Deb v/s The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1447 in respect of the plea that de novo enquiry under the Rules could not have been directed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that no error has been committed in directing de novo enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority since the initial enquiry was ex-parte and the Enquiry Report does not discuss any evidence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

6. On the examination of the charge-sheet, it is found that the charges relate to the period 1987 to 1989; whereas the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 30.07.1998 almost after 9 years of the incident. A perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that these are not the charges which have come to the knowledge of the Respondents at any subsequent stage. The petitioner in the writ petition has taken a specific ground that there was inordinate delay in issuing the charge-sheet for which no reason has been disclosed or explanation has been given by the concerned Respondents. On the perusal of the reply filed by the Respondent before this Court, it is found that even in the reply before this Court the Respondents have not disclosed any reason for delay in issuing the charge-sheet and initiating the enquiry almost after 9 years of the incident. Thus, there is no explanation whatsoever for delay in serving the charge-sheet and initiating the Departmental Enquiry after a lapse of almost 9 years.

7. It is the settled position in law that if there is inordinate delay in initiating the Departmental Enquiry and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in issuing the charge-sheet, then it would not be fair to permit the department to continue with the Departmental Enqui