KALESHWAR SINGH RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari against the respondents for quashing the enquiry on the ground of delay in its conclusion.

(2.) While the petitioner was working as Sub Engineer in Block Development Office, Pharsabhar, District Raigarh he was suspended by order Annexure P-1 dated 27th June, 1995 mentioning therein that he has misbehaved with the people's representatives, failed to value the work within time and has been negligent and delinquent in work. A show cause notice was issued to him on 7th July 1995 vide Annexure P-2 seeking his explanation as to why a departmental enquiry should not be constituted against him. In this show cause notice only two imputations were leveled, that he addressed the Sarpanchas as csodwwwwQ and ew[kZ (idiots and fools) and has directed the Sarpanchas to move application on a stamp paper of Rs.5/- for carrying out valuation of the work. Particulars of charges and the details of charges as also the list of witness and documents were served alongwith the show cause notice. The petitioner submitted his reply on 24/08/1995 vide Annexure P-3. However, by order Annexure P- 4, dated 8/09/1995 he was reinstated and by another order Annexure P-5 of the same date enquiry officer was appointed for proceeding ahead with the enquiry against the petitioner. It is this enquiry which is pending since September, 1995 i.e. for more than 16 years and the petitioner moved repeated applications on 10/08/2000 (Annexure P-7), 26/09/2000 (Annexure P-8) and 13/06/2001 (Annexure P-9) for early conclusion of the departmental enquiry and release of annual increment which is not paid to him since when the enquiry was constituted against him.

(3.) In the above back ground and factual matrix, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that continuation of enquiry for a period of 16 years is violative of principles of natural justice as also for the reason that it affects his valuable right of obtaining annual increment and his consideration for promotion to the next higher post. He would submit that even the charges are trivial as none of the charges allege anything about his sincerity, honesty and integrity. He would submit that in the facts of the case enquiry proceeding deserves to be quashed.