UNION OF INDIA Vs. MR A K MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitions have been filed by the Union of India represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. Nos.556/98 and 674/98 respectively.

(2.) THE facts leading to these petitions could be briefly set out as hereunder. THE first respondent in W.P. No.14729/00 and the 2nd respondent in W.P. No.15025/00, while working as Preventive Officers in the petitioner-Department, certain allegations were levelled against them and a charge memo dated 5.1.89 was issued. An enquiry was conducted in December, 1990 and the enquiry officer submitted his report subsequent to the enquiry in June 1990 and explanation of the respective respondents were also called for. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority, namely, the Additional Collector of Customs, by an order dated 25.3.99, basing on certain lapses in the enquiry, dropped the charges. Consequent to the dropping of the charges, a show cause notice dated 17.8.95 has been issued by the department to the respective respondents and they also submitted their replies for the same. Subsequent to this, another enquiry was conducted by the disciplinary authority and based on this enquiry, by order dated 17.2.98, (i.e.) after a lapse of 7 ½ years, the penalty of reduction of pay for a period of one year was imposed on the first respondent in W.P. No.14729/00, while a penalty of 10% cut in monthly pension for a period of one year was imposed on the 2nd respondent in W.P. No.15025/00. Challenging the same, the respective respondents filed O.A. Nos.556/98 and 674/98 and the same has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 2.7.99. As against the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner-Department has filed the present writ petitions.

(3.) WITH regard to the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the disciplinary authority has dropped the charges by an order dated 25.3.91, but the review order has been passed only in the year 1998, which is after a lapse of seven years and the same is due to the fact that as the matter has been dealt with stage by stage by the departmental authorities delay has crept in in taking action against the delinquents. Though the argument of the learned counsel, on the face of it sounds attractive, yet for the reason that the disciplinary authority has dropped the charges as early as in the year 1991 and the review order has been passed only in the year 1998 after a lapse of seven years, we could safely hold that the said order has not been passed within a reasonable time and seven years period is too long a time and the same cannot be termed as a reasonable time by any stretch of imagination.