ORDER

11/01/2023

1. Grievance of petitioner in this writ petition is that the departmental enquiry initiated against petitioner in the year 2018, is not concluded till date.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while working on the post of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Gariyaband, based on some allegation, was served with a charge-sheet on 30.07.2018. During pendency of Departmental Enquiry, petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2019. Being dissatisfied with the reply filed by petitioner to the charge-sheet, Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed on 05.08.2019. The Inquiry Officer died in harness on

14.04.2021 and thereafter another Inquiry Officer was appointed on 20.10.2021. Even from the date of appointment of new Inquiry Officer, more than 01 year and 02 months have already passed but till date the Departmental Enquiry initiated against petitioner is not concluded. Due to pendency of departmental enquiry, petitioner is suffering adversely. He contended that the enquiry initiated against Government servant is to be completed expeditiously, latest by one year.

3. Learned State counsel submits that from the pleadings in the writ petition, it is apparent that during pendency of departmental enquiry, Inquiry Officer died in harness and therefore delay is caused in conclusion of enquiry and it is not deliberate.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. From perusal of the record would show that according to pleadings made in the writ petition, Inquiry Officer was appointed initially on 05.08.2019. On 14.04.2021, Inquiry Officer died in harness and thereafter on 20.10.2021, new Inquiry Officer was appointed. As of now even after the date of appointment of new Inquiry Officer, about one year and two months have already been passed but till date the departmental enquiry initiated against petitioner is not completed.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another reported in 2015 (16) SCC 415, while considering the issue with regard to time frame under which the Departmental Enquiry is to be completed has observed thus:

“26. Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee.

28. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.”

7. In the case at hand, charge-sheet was issued on 30.07.2018 and since the date of appointment of new Inquiry Officer, more than 01 year and 02 months have already been passed, petitioner stood retire in the year 2019 and also the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prem Nath Bali (supra), the maximum period under which the Departmental Enquiry is required to be completed ie., one year, there appears to be some delay in conclusion of the departmental enquiry.

8. In the aforementioned facts of the case, Respondents are directed to take steps to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated against petitioner in