Disciplinary authority's findings and procedural compliance are crucial; undue delay in inquiry does not automatically invalidate disciplinary outcomes.

ORDER

By Mallika Arya, AM:

Through this Original Application, the applicant is challenging the charge-sheet dated 02.07.2009 (Annexure A/3) and punishment order dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure A/1). He is further seeking directions to the respondents to allow him to rejoin at 3 Chhattisgarh Air SQN NCC Raipur with all consequential benefits.

2. Briefly stating, the facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed in the respondent department to the post of C.G.I. w.e.f. 28.08.2001. The applicant is a qualified pilot having a commercial flying license and by virtue of same the applicant was holding the post of Civilian Gliding Instructor (CGI) in the office of Respondent No.2. While holding the post of Civilian Gliding Instructor (CGI) at 3 Punjab Air Squadron NCC Patiala he was subjected to a false and fabricated departmental enquiry by way of a major penalty charge sheet dated 02.07.2009 (Annexure A/3). It was alleged that the applicant while working as a Civilian Gliding Instructor in 3 Punjab Air Squadron, NCC Patiala under NCC Directorate Punjab Haryana and Chandigarh, the officer had simultaneously served in a private Aviation firm that is M/s. Alchemist Aviation Pvt. Ltd. Jamshedpur. He received a large amount of remuneration from the firm during the period 25. 01.2007 to May 2008. The applicant accepted the private employment without obtaining prior approval of the competent authority. Hence, the charge officer has failed to maintain absolute integrity and displayed lack of devotion and conduct unbecoming of government servant. The enquiry was conducted by an officer named Shri Col. Karamjeet Singh. There was no direct evidence to substantiate the charges against the applicant. The applicant denied the charges by preferring a detailed representation dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure A/4). The respondents without accepting the contention put forth by the delinquent officer has proceeded with a full fledged enquiry by appointing Shri Colonel Gurmeet Singh and Colonel Bharpur Singh who were appointed as Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively. The applicant subsequently preferred another representation dated 19.02.2010 (Annexure A/6) alleging bias vis-a-vis the enquiry officer and presenting officer. Hence he requested for change of Inquiry Officer and presenting officer. In the meanwhile, the applicant was transferred from Patiala to Raipur. The applicant also requested the respondent authorities to shift the place of enquiry from Patiala to Raipur. The respondents passed an order dated 11.10.2010 (Annexure A/7) and with the approval of competent authority enquiry officer and presenting officer were changed. Meanwhile, the enquiry proceedings were also transferred from Patiala to Raipur. The, Director General NCC vide his order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure A/10) directed him to proceed on posting to Raipur from Patiala during the pendency of the department. The department enquiry was prolonged for a period of more than 12 years and remained pending for one reason or the other. The time schedule of the DOP&T to complete the departmental enquiry is enclosed as Annexure A/11. During the period 2010 to 2016 the applicant has preferred several representations and requested for change of enquiry officer. However, his request for change of enquiry officer was rejected by another order dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure A/12). He also made representations for speedy conclusion of enquiry proceedings. The respondents have nothing to substantiate against the applicant orally or by way of documentary evidence. The applicant has made