The Court accepted delays in inquiry proceedings due to administrative challenges, granting an extension to comply with previous mandatory directions.

JUDGMENT

Indrajit Mahanty; CJ. - The present I.A. No.01 of 2021 has been filed arising out of WP(C) No.304 of 2021 inter alia seeking a direction for extending the time by at least two months to comply with the directions of this Court dated 30.04.2021 passed in WP(C) No.304 of 2021. Vide judgment dated 30.04.2021 this Court in paragraph-4 of the said judgment directed as follows:

'4. Under the circumstances, it is directed that the respondents shall complete the departmental inquiry against the petitioner within six months from today, i.e. latest by 31.10.2021. In view of these directions, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the prayer for quashing of the suspension order.'

2. Learned counsel for the State has narrated the events which have occurred in the present inquiry proceedings in paragraph-5 of the present application which is quoted hereunder:

'5. That, in the meanwhile, the Inquiring Authority was also placed on compulsory waiting for posting vide notification dated 27th July, 2021.

By Order dated 4th September, 2021 Shri Apurba Roy, IAS, Secretary, Planning department was appointed as Inquiry Authority to inquire into the charge framed against Sri Chakraborty. By order dated 9th September, 2021 Shri Nantu Ranjan Das, TCS was appointed as presenting officer to present the case before the Inquiry Authority. Notice was issued on 10-09-2021 to Sri Chakraborty to appear before the Inquiry Authority on 15-09-2021. The Inquiry Authority submitted his findings vide letter dated 7th October, 2021. As per Rule 15 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 copy of findings of the Inquiry Authority dated 7th October, 2021 supplied to the petitioner for furnishing his written representation if any against the findings of the Inquiry Authority within 15 (Fifteen) days of receipt of memorandum dated 7-10-2021. Writ petitioner submitted his representation vide letter dated 22-10-2021 against the findings of the Inquiry Authority. The written representation of the writ petitioner was processed and placed before the authority for decision.'

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the entire proceeding has more or less come to a conclusion within the time as directed by this Court and the Inquiry Authority on 07.10.2021 supplied to the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report requiring him to furnish his written representation, if any, against the findings of the Inquiry Authority within 15 days. The original writ petitioner namely Sri Bimal Chakraborty also submitted his representation within the time as stipulated, i.e. on 22.10.2021. In spite of having made his representation within the time stipulated by this Court, the disciplinary proceeding was not concluded within the time as directed.

4. Learned senior counsel Mr. Somik Deb appearing for the original writ petitioner contends that the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 30.04.2021 and in paragraph-4 thereof as quoted hereinabove clearly establishes the fact that the directions of this Court were mandatory in nature and time was of essence. He further submits that even if a situation arose where extension of time may have been sought for, the present applicants did not seek extension of time prior to the period that was fixed by the Court, i.e. 31.10.2021 lapsing.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the private respondent-original writ petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the delay caused in concluding the proceedings was not attributable to any purposeful delay on the part of the State but it appeared that it was only on 04.09.2021 that an officer was placed as Secretary in the Planning department as Inquiry Authority and the Inquiry Officer concluded the inquiry, submi