M A WARSI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed Law Officer of the Punjab Wakf Board (for short the Board) in the year 1989 by its Administrator. In March, 1994 he was placed under suspension and on 8.7.1994 he was served with a chargesheet and a regular departmental inquiry was ordered against him. Shri S.Y. Quaraishi was then the Administrator of the Board and Shri F.O. Hashmi was its Secretary. It appears that the petitioner made allegations against these officers that they were inimical towards him and represented in this regard to the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Welfare (Wakf Division), New Delhi. Since his representation was not being disposed of, he filed CWP 9359 of 1994 in this Court with a prayer that the Board be restrained from proceeding further in the inquiry and that the same be entrusted to an independent and impartial person who has no bias or malice against the petitioner. This writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench on 18.7.1994 with a direction that the representation filed by the petitioner be decided by the competent authority by a speaking order preferably within two months from the receipt of a copy of the order. The representation was referred to the Central Government for its orders thereon but since the competent authority was the Administrator it was referred back to the latter who considered the same and rejected it as per his order dated 28.10.1994. It is against this order of rejection (Annexure P8 with the writ petition) that the present petition has been filed

(2.) The primary grievance made by the petitioner is that Shri Quraishi should not have decided his representation as some of the allegations made therein were against him. It is not necessary to decide this issue as it is common case of the parties that Shri Quraishi and Shri F.O. Hashmi are no longer in the Board and that Shri S.B. Sanyal a retired Judge of the Patna High Court who is presently practising in the Supreme Court has been appointed the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The stand of the petitioner throughout has been that the inquiry against him could be held only after removing Shri Quraishi and Shri Hashmi from the Board who, according to the petitioner, were biased against him. Now that they are no longer in the Board there is no reason why the inquiry should not commence The petitioner who appeared in person stated that he is not willing to appear before the Enquiry Officer unless the inquiry is held at Ambala. It may be mentioned that the Enquiry Officer as per his letter dated 24.8.1994 addressed to the petitioner required the latter to appear before the former on 18.9.1994 with an assurance to the petitioner that subsequent sittings would be held at the venue mutually agreed upon. The petitioner was requested to co-operate in the inquiry and he was further assured that the inquiry would be free and fair and that if the charges are found to be baseless the petitioner would be exonerated. Inspite of all this the petitioner remained adamant in not appearing before the Enquiry Officer. While admitting the writ petition this Court directed that final order in the inquiry be not passed and because of this interim order proceedings in the inquiry have not yet commenced.

(3.) There is no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed. The Enquiry Officer is, however, directed to proceed with the inquiry and conclude the same within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order even if the petitioner does not co-operate or appear before him. There is no order as to costs.