ORDER

1. Appellant Shri Shailesh Bindua is present in the Court. He submits that left leg of the counsel Shri Narmada Prasad Choudhary is fractured. That his son Shri Amit Choudhary, who is also an Advocate in the Court is busy to attend his father.

2. Heard appellant in person.

3. Assailing the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in disposing off the Writ Petition No.23594 of 2022, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was working in the respondent Bank as Scale-III employee and was posted at Nagda Branch of Madhya Pradesh. He joined the Bank service on 27.8.2010 as a Probationary Officer. Subsequently, he was promoted as M.M. Grade-II Officer and thereafter in Scale-III on 1.6.2019. Lastly, he was posted as Senior Manager, Nagda Branch, Madhya Pradesh from 17.12.2019 till the filing of petition. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.1.2020. After suspension, the authorities have failed to issue charge-sheet in 90 days. He preferred an appeal against his suspension order on the ground that suspension is not permissible beyond three months in terms of the Circular of the Bank dated 23.10.2020. The respondents have issued a charge-sheet to the writ petitioner on 2.8.2022, but the attested copy of the documents and statements of witnesses were not supplied to him. A request was made by the writ petitioner to supply all the documents to enable him to submit a reply. There was a refusal to supply the copies of the documents by the respondent Bank vide letter dated 24.8.2022. He again made a representation on 29.8.2022, but instead of supplying the documents, a departmental enquiry was instituted against him and an enquiry officer was being appointed. It is his case that in view of the circular dated 24.7.1980 a time limit has been prescribed for taking a disciplinary action against an employee of the Bank. The allegation in the charge-sheet is with respect to a transaction which took place on 16.9.2016 for which a charge-sheet has been issued on 2.8.2022 i.e. after five years, ten months and sixteen days, therefore, the same is highly belated and not maintainable. Therefore, he preferred a writ petition. He has placed reliance upon certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his arguments. The learned writ Court has disposed off the writ petition on the ground that an appeal against the suspension order is pending consideration and has directed to take a decision within 60 days on the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner. As far as issuance of charge-sheet is concerned, the same was dismissed in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Kunishetty Satyanarayan reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28. Therefore, the appeal has been preferred.

5. After arguing at length, writ petitioner has fairly submitted before this Court that the statements of witnesses have been recorded and now only the report remains to be submitted. His suspension has already been revoked. It is argued that as he was not being provided proper opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has been issued with a considerable delay, the same is unsustainable. The fact remains that the proceedings of the departmental enquiry has already been completed. Now, the enquiry officer has to submit his final report. The writ petitioner has actively participated in the departmental enquiry. At the fag end of departmental enquiry, it cannot be argued that he was not being granted ample opportunity of hearing. Considering the fact that the entire departmental enquiry proceedings are over, wherein the writ petitioner has actively participated and only final order based upon the report is to be passed, no relief as claimed can be extended.

6. The law is well settled with respect to the cases of departmental enquiry as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunishetty Satya