SOHAN LAL KANSAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment and order dated 3. 2. 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had filed the petition without exhausting the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal.

(2.) THE contention which was raised before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the petitioner was that the order of the punishment had been passed by the Secretary, Department of Personnel, who was the Appellate Authority. THE learned Single Judge took the view that it was, therefore, admitted case that the alternative remedy of appeal was available and yet the same was not exhausted. THErefore, it was mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner was at liberty to file an appeal before the competent authority before whom this point could also be urged. We find that whereas the contention was that the punishment order had itself been passed by the Appellate Authority, there is no question of filing appeal before the same authority and therefore, the rejection of the petition on the ground that the alternative remedy was not availed of cannot be sustained. We are, therefore, required to consider the case of the appellant on merits.

(3.) IN the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan (2), also the Supreme Court considered as to when the delay vitiates the enquiry proceedings and held that there are no predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations, each case has to be considered taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances and balance has to be maintained between purity of administration and the adverse effect which the prolonged proceedings may have on an employee. Unexplained delay in conclusion of the proceedings is in itself an indication of prejudice caused to the employee and in the facts of that case, the enquiry proceedings were quashed and the employee was directed to be promoted in accordance with the recommendations of the DPC. The Supreme Court had also noticed that it was a case of generalisation of the charges and the role of each employee had not been particularised in the charges.