Protracted disciplinary proceedings without valid justification, especially post-acquittal in criminal cases, constitute harassment and must be quashed.

O R D E R

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that on a criminal case being registered against him in the month of April, 2005 under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he was suspended from service; that in the criminal prosecution initiated against him, he had secured acquittal; that the said order had attained finality as no notice in appeal has been served on him till date; that disciplinary action was initiated on the basis of the same set of charges, as in the criminal prosecution, by issuing charge memo dated 30.11.2016 after a lapse of 7 years of his acquittal in the criminal prosecution; that the respondents by showing pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, did not allow him to retire from service vide proceedings dated 30.11.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation and continuing him in service until the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are concluded or final orders passed therein by the Competent Authority; and that despite more than 9 years had passed by since, then no orders are passed till date.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that since, the charge memo dated 30.11.2016 was issued on the last date of his service, he had challenged the same by filing a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.No.43230 of 2016 and the same was dismissed on 14.09.2017; that aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, he had preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.202 of 2018; that this Court by order dated 31.01.2018 disposed of the aforesaid writ appeal directing the respondents to conduct enquiry and complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment; and that the petitioner was granted liberty to raise all the contentions including the defence of delay in issuing charge memo, acquittal in criminal proceedings in his favour among other grounds, in the disciplinary proceedings.

4. Petitioner contended that despite this Court fixing outer time limit for conducting and completing the enquiry initiated against him, though the first respondent appointed the second respondent as an Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 15.05.2018, as the second respondent did not commence the enquiry and submit his report within the time fixed by this Court or as mentioned in the proceedings of the first respondent dated 15.05.2018 and since, time limit fixed by this Court had lapsed in June, 2018 and nearly a year having passed by therefrom, he had initiated contempt proceedings; that on this Court issuing notice in Contempt proceedings on 27.04.2019, the second respondent issued notice calling upon the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 20.05.2019, only to show to the Court in the contempt proceedings that enquiry has commenced.

5. The petitioner further contended that this Court taking note of the aforesaid submission being made in the contempt petition of the second respondent having issued notice in enquiry proceedings, closed the contempt petition granting liberty to workout the remedy as per law against the pending proceedings. Thus, assailing the said notice, present writ petition is filed.

6. The petitioner further contended that since, the impugned notices are issued by the second respondent beyond the time prescribed in the proceedings by which, he was appointed and also being beyond the time limit specified by this Court for conducting and completing enquriy and inasmuch as no extension of time has been sought by the respondents from this Court, the second responde