JAGIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Jagir Singh was working as Kanungo in the Punjab Revenue Department and was posted at Lalru, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, in the year 1970 He was appointed as a receiver in a dispute regarding agricultural land, the proceedings regarding which were pending before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rajpura. Due to certain irregularities regarding the functioning of the petitioner in that capacity, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and an inquiry officer was appointed who submitted his report on 28th July, 1972. However, the matter remained pending, for a full decade and ultimately on 27th July, 1982. a show cause notice was served on the petitioner to which he submitted his reply on 9th August, 1982 Even thereafter the matter remained pending for about two years and nothing was decided one way or the other. Ultimately, on 26th October, 1983, the petitioner submitted a representation to the authorities requesting for the dropping of proceedings pending against him since long, by placing reliance on the policy instructions of the State Government issued vide letter No. 12277-V (1)-59/13470, dated 10th December, 1959, from the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Vigilance Department. The relevant extract from these instructions is reproduced below :-?

(2.) IN the meantime, in a similar case Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. , C. W. P. 665 of 1977 a Division Bench of this Court considered the applicability and the justiciability of the aforesaid instructions on 22nd February, 1977, by holding as under :

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid Division Bench judgment does not lay down the correct law It is no doubt correct and reasonable also, that departmental proceedings initiated against the employees should be finalised expeditiously. Expeditious disposal helps the employer as well as, the employees as it removes uncertainty about the future career of the employees and lessens the financial burden in most of the cases, where the employees are either placed under suspension or their promotions etc. are deferred during the pendency of the inquiry. But, for how many months a particular departmental inquiry can be allowed to continue and after the expiry of how many months the approval of the Head of the Department the Secretary to the Government/the Chief Secretary/the Minister Incharge, or the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) has to be obtained or not, is purely for the employer to consider In that process the delinquent employee cannot be associated nor does he have any say in the matter. If the State Government have issued certain guidelines for the guideance of the various departments or the disciplinary authorities to impress upon them the necessity of finalising the departmental proceedings expeditiously or even within a fixed period, it does not mean that after the expiry of that period, a right in law accrues to the employee to approach the Court of law for the enforcement of those guidelines The employee may, in a fit case, approach the Court for the quashing of the proceedings, if the pendency of the inquiry has otherwise been protracted and delayed to an unreasonable extent by the employer himself. Therefore, we cannot persuade ourselves to accept the view taken by the Division Bench in C. W. P. No. 665 of 1977 (supra), and with respect we have no option but to overrule the same.