ROSHAN LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for decision in this petition is whether the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner can be allowed to continue or should be quashed, being inordinately delayed.

(2.) The petitioner is a Sub Divisional Officer and at the relevant time in the year 1977, was posted at National Highway Division, Amritsar, in the Public Works Department of the State of Punjab. It appears that certain embezzlements in the department were detected and, therefore, an F.I.R. was registered on 18.12.1972. The petitioner, however, was not named therein. However, later as a consequence of preliminary enquiry report was submitted on 11.7.1974 and it transpired that the petitioner for the first time was sought to be implicated therein. The notice is Annexure P-5. For no good reasons the Department waited for 14 long years before a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 1.7.1988. To this charge-sheet, the petitioner replied immediately, as soon as on 16.8.1988. In spite of it, the Enquiry Officer waited for further period of about a year when the petitioner was served a notice to appear before him on 3.10.1989. The petitioner alleges that because of this undue delay in proceeding against him, he was denied the promotions, which were otherwise due to him. He is now due to retire at the end of year 1998. The petitioner adds that right from the year 1972 till date no fault has been found with the petitioner's conduct relating to his service nor has any adverse report been communicated to him. Relying on the authority of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh and another, 1990(2) S.L.R. 798, the departmental proceedings are sought to be quashed.

(3.) In defence, the stand taken is that the enquiry has now reached at the stage of evidence and may soon see its end. Consequently, says learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Punjab, that the enquiry should be allowed to be completed. Regarding Bani Singh's case (supra), it is submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal (whose judgment was before the Supreme Court in appeal), quashed the departmental enquiry because of unexplained long delay and the Supreme Court only observed that there was no reason to interfere with the view so taken by the Tribunal.