S.K. TIGGA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ/direction for quashing of the/charge-sheet dated 06-09-2003 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 03-09-2001 (Annexure P-3), whereby, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner have been withheld on account of pendency of enquiry against the petitioner. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime) and posted at Janjgir Champa. The petitioner was the investigating officer in respect of Crime No. 367/2000 registered against the report of the complaint made by one Shobharam on 23-10-2000. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, while framing the charges under the provisions of Section 325/323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), in Criminal Case No. 572/01 on 03-09-2001 (Annexure P-3), observed that the investigation was suspicious. A copy of the same was sent to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh.

(2.) ON the basis of above stated observation made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, a charge-sheet dated 06-09-2003 (Annexure P-5) was issued, which is impugned herein. The petitioner requested for supply of necessary documents vide letter dated 26-09-2003 (Annexure P-6). Despite request, no papers were supplied to the petitioner. It is clear from correspondence dated 08-05-2005 (Annexure P-7) between Asstt. Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police, Janjgir Champa. Pursuant to the charge-sheet, no enquiry officer has been appointed as yet and it appears that the case is still pending. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2005 (Annexure P-1).

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that after issue of charge-sheet dated 06-09-2003 (Annexure P-5), no further action has been initiated in respect of departmental enquiry. The petitioner was deprived of all the documents which he has requested for submitting his reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2005. Thereafter, also nothing has happened till date. The employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings pending, if any, are concluded expeditiously. Delay caused prejudice, defeats the basic purpose of departmental enquiry and justice. The Supreme Court, in the matter of State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan : [1998]2SCR693 where the issue involved was charge-sheet relating to the incident over ten years stale, observed as under: