DAYA NAND Vs. D C GURGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the action of the respondent-State in issuing a charge sheet Annexure P2 to him after a lapse of 17 years of the alleged date of the Commission of irregularities/illegalities by the petitioner in the year 1975.

(2.) THE alleged irregularities/illegalities were committed by the petitioner in the year 1975 and the same were in the notice of the Registration Authorities at least since 1978. No action was taken against the petitioner for a period of 17 years and suddenly in the year 1992, the charge sheet was issued to him for the alleged irregularities committed by him in the year 1975. No explanation is forthcoming from the respondents as to why the charge sheet has been issued after a lapse of 17 years. A very weak defence has been taken in the written statement filed that the alleged irregularities came to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner in the year 1991 and the action was being taken immediately after it came to his notice. In the replication filed, petitioner has attached a copy of the letter issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palwal, in the year 1978 which indicates that the commission of the alleged irregularities was in the notice of the higher authorities. Repeatedly the Supreme Court as well as this Court have impressed upon the authorities the necessity of finalising the departmental proceedings expeditiously or within a fixed period. Such matters cannot be kept pending against the employees for unexplained reasons inordinately, Supreme Court of India in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Beni Singh, A. I. R. 1990 S. C. 1308 held as under: "4. The appeal against the order dated 16th December, 1987, has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We, are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so. It is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental inquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case, there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal".