STATE OF BIHAR Vs. S K VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 22nd March, 1990, the writ petitioner -respondent was suspended. He, therefore, filed the first writ petition challenging his order of suspension. During the pendency of the first writ petition, on 22nd April, 1990 a charge sheet was issued against the writ petitioner -respondent and thereby a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1950. In the charge sheet it was indicated that Sri B.N. Upadhyaya, the Superintending Engineer has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Sri Kalakand Kumar, Executive Engineer has been appointed as the Presenting Officer. The writ petitioner -respondent was asked to give his explanation with respect to the charges before the Enquiry Officer. The charge sheet contained nine charges but did not furnish any list of witnesses or documents.

(2.) BY letters dated 5th May, 1990 and 18th June, 1990, the writ petitioner -respondent requested for documents and materials upon which the charges were intended to be proved. Those were not supplied. On 11th November, 1990, the writ petitioner -respondent gave his explanation to the Enquiry Officer and thereby denied the charges. On 30th July, 1990, the first writ petition was disposed of with a direction, inter alia, to conclude the disciplinary proceeding preferably within four months from the date of production of the order disposing of the said writ petition.

(3.) THOUGH the last date of the proceeding of the enquiry was 30th November, 1990 but the disciplinary proceeding was not concluded within four months from the date of production of the order of the Court passed in the first writ petition and, accordingly, once again the writ petitioner -respondent filed another writ petition challenging the suspension order. In the counter affidavit filed to the second writ petition it was disclosed that the enquiry report has been submitted and charges levelled against the writ petitioner -respondent have been proved. The enquiry report, however, was not made over to the writ petitioner -respondent. On the writ petition, an order was passed on 21st May, 1991 and thereby the disciplinary authority was restrained from taking any further action against the writ petitioner -respondent. Subsequent thereto on 14th November, 1991, on the writ petition another order was passed and thereby a direction was given to the disciplinary authority to serve a copy of the enquiry report to the writ petitioner - respondent and the writ petitioner - respondent was given liberty to make a representation against the report. The Court directed that upon consideration of such representation, the final order should be passed and the same should be a speaking order. Only thereupon the enquiry report was served upon the writ petitioner -respondent through the learned Advocate engaged by him in the writ petition and thereupon he filed a representation. The representation was rejected by an order dated 8th January, 1992 and the disciplinary proceeding was concluded by passing an order of dismissal dated 17th June, 1992. Subsequent thereto the writ petition was amended and thereby a challenge was thrown to the enquiry report as well as to the order of dismissal. On 26th June, 1995, the writ petition was admitted and during the pendency of the writ petition on 31st January, 1997, the writ petitioner -respondent attained the age of superannuation.