V MURALEEDHARAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE V. Muraleedharan is the petitioner/appellant in all the above matters.

(2.) INASMUCH as the Writ Petitions and the Writ Appeals have been filed by the very same individual and the issue raised therein is also one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common Judgment.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows :-The writ petitioner was working as Commandant/principal in the Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'cisf'), Recruits Training Centre (RTC), Arakkonam, from 24. 06. 1989 to 14. 05. 1995 and, thereafter, he was posted at the Units in the North-East and Eastern Sectors of India. Before his retirement, he was posted as the Commandant of the CISF Unit, V. S. S. C. (ISRO), Thumba, Trivandrum. Originally, 9 charges were framed against him relating to some alleged incidents that took place in Arakkonam while he was serving as Commandant/principal, CISF, RTC, with regard to certain affairs of a Temple (Mandir) in which he was the Honorary Ex-Officio President and a charge memo came to be served on him while he was posted at the XII Reserve Battalion at Farakka, West Bengal. Thereafter, he was posted to Trivandrum at the CISF Unit, ISRO, Thumba, and later, on 30. 04. 2002, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner challenged the Charge Memo dated 24. 04. 1998 in W. P. No. 12090 of 1998. By an order, dated 29. 09. 2000, this Court allowed the above Writ Petition, quashing the charge memo dated 24. 04. 1998 as vague, unclear and lacking in minimum particulars, however, granted liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings. Soon after the charge memo was quashed by virtue of the Order passed in W. P. No. 12090 of 1998, on 09. 10. 2000, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held for consideration of the petitioner's case along with that of others. However, the D. P. C. was deliberately postponed to 23. 10. 2000. After the order, dated 20. 10. 2000, passed in the Writ Petition, on 21. 10. 2000 itself, a second charge memo with the very same defects but reducing the charges from 9 to 4 was issued and served on the petitioner on 22. 10. 2000. On 23. 10. 2000, the DPC considered the petitioner's case and put the conclusion/recommendation in a sealed cover. Fresh set of four charges was challenged by the petitioner in W. P. No. 19667 of 2000 and the matter was admitted on 23. 11. 2000 and interim stay was granted by this Court. The petitioner has also filed W. P. No. 19668 of 2000 for a direction to grant him promotion. The said Petition was also admitted by this Court. By Order dated 21. 11. 2001, the learned single Judge of this Court; after finding that though the Charge Memo may be bereft of material particulars and vague, if read in conjunction/combination with the annexed documents, it would no longer be vague; dismissed W. P. No. 19667 of 2000. Questioning the said Order, the petitioner filed W. A. No. 2668 of 2001. The said Writ Appeal was admitted and interim stay was granted. While hearing the Stay and Vacate Stay Petitions filed by the petitioner as well as the Department, after opening the sealed cover and finding that the petitioner was fit for promotion, this Court directed the respondents to promote him and also complete the enquiry within a period of four months. In the meanwhile, the petitioner attained superannuation on 30. 04. 2002. As against the above mentioned direction, the Department preferred an Appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of three months. The said Order was passed on 30. 09. 2002. In spite of the specific direction and extension of time, enquiry was not conducted within the stipulated time. Since 20 months have expired after the order passed on 09. 04. 2002 in Writ Appeal No. 2668 of 2002 and 1 year and 3 months after the Order of the Supreme Court, and no steps have been taken to start the enquiry, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 39300 of 2003 to quash the proceedings dated 21. 10. 2000 on the ground of delay. Against the Order dated 29. 09. 2000 in W. P. No. 12090 of 1998, the petitioner preferred W. A. No. 3970 of 2004 and the same was admitted by this Court. Even though the petitioner had 36 years of unblemished service and received several medals for his distinguished services, the respondents, due to bias, bent upon to continue the enquiry even after expiry of the time fixed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. Inasmuch as he was charged with misconduct pertaining to the affairs of a temple, which was not connected with his affairs as an Officer of the Government and, at the relevant time, he was leading an organisation with 1500 staff under him, the respondents ought to have closed the enquiry and, at this juncture, it would be humanly impossible for the petitioner to defend his case. The delay caused by the respondents in initiating the enquiry would severely handicap the petitioner in substantiating his case/claim, therefore, the entire charge memo is to be quashed.