Prolonged disciplinary proceedings without timely conclusion violate principles of natural justice.

ORDER

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking the following relief:-

(i) That the action of respondents in initiating the inquiry proceedings at this belated stage i.e. after 8 years of order dated 28.04.2010 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 340/PB/2010 filed by the applicant seeking finalization of disciplinary proceedings whereby respondent No. 2 was granted three months’ time to conclude the remaining departmental proceedings and after 5 years of the advice of UPSC be declared illegal, unsustainable and arbitrary.

(ii) That in the eventuality this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that continuance of departmental proceedings at this belated stage is permissible, the impugned Order dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure A-1) be quashed and set-aside, in the interest of justice and the respondent No. 2 be directed to appoint a new Inquiry Officer to ensure effective, reasonable opportunity and compliance of principles of Natural Justice, in the interest of justice.

(iii) That the applicant be held entitled to all consequential benefits and reliefs, in the interest of justice.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was selected to IAS and allocated to State of H.P. being appointed on 29.08.1983 (1983 Batch). The applicant while working as Secretary Lokayukta and State Human Rights Commission, Shimla, was issued Charge-sheet dated 18.02.2006 proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 8 of All India Services (Disciplinary & Appeal) Rules, 1969 alleging that he while working as Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. was on election duty at Begusarai in Bihar State, passed two orders on 28.01.2005 by holding a Camp Court at Begusarai in Bihar State, out of his jurisdiction of Kangra Division, whereas jurisdiction could be exercised only within the limits of Kangra Division itself. The State Government appointed Sh. Avay Shukla, Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) as Inquiry Officer vide Order dated 13.09.2006. The applicant filed O.A. No. 618/HP/2006 in this Tribunal, inter-alia, challenging the Charge-sheet dated 18.02.2006, the appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and competency of State Government to issue the Charge-sheet. The O.A. was dismissed vide Order dated 09.07.2007. The applicant filed C.W.P. No. 1274 of 2007 in the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court, which was dismissed having been rendered infructuous vide order dated 05.11.2015. During the pendency of said Writ Petition, the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report dated 02.10.2008 proving the charge against the applicant. On receiving the Inquiry report, the applicant made a request dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure A-4) to the respondent No. 2 to supply the record of the inquiry and certain documents essential for the preparation of representation against the Inquiry Report. But the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 27.11.2008 asked the applicant to inspect the requisite record.

3. While reserving his rights and request to submit the detailed reply against the Inquiry Report, the applicant submitted brief reply dated 22.12.2008 against the Inquiry Report (Annexure A-5). That instead of supplying the essential/ relevant documents as requested for by the applicant vide aforesaid letters dated 12.11.2008 and 22.12.2008 so as to enable him to file the detailed representation against the Inquiry Report, the State Government decided to impose penalty of ’Compulsory Retirement’ upon the applicant. The State Government referred the matter to Government of India, DoPT vide letter dated 06.08.2009. The applicant filed O.A. No. 340/PB/2010 before this Tribunal seeking