RAJKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 13th November, 2009 in MA No. 2174 of 2009 in OA No. 1959/2009 and C. P. NO. 504/2009 whereby the contempt proceedings were dropped against the respondents and the notices were discharged.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed an original application under Section 19 of administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which was disposed off vide order dated 27th july, 2009. The petitioner was expected to submit his reply to the disagreement note and the respondents were directed to dispose of the representation and pass the final orders within two months. The disciplinary proceedings could not be completed by the respondents within prescribed time and consequently a contempt petition being C. P. No. 504 of 2009 in OA No. 1959 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner in which notice was issued to the respondents. It appears that at one stage it was stated by the respondents that de novo enquiry proceedings would be initiated. However, it was clarified that further enquiry is required to be held. The respondents sought further six months time to complete the enquiry.

(3.) THE Tribunal on 29th April, 2009, however granted four months time more to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The Tribunal also dismissed the contempt petition discharged the notice issued in the contempt petition. The petitioner has challenged the order of the tribunal primarily on the ground that the respondents ought to have finished the disciplinary proceedings within two months, within the time granted by the tribunal by order dated 27th July, 2009. The Tribunal had granted time to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within two months and consequently the Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction and power to extend the time to complete the disciplinary proceedings. In the facts and circumstances, the order of Tribunal granting more time to the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings does not suffer from such error of illegality which is to be corrected by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.