BABU LAL GANGWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had attained the age of 57 years at the time of filing of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner gives out that the petitioner is going to retire on April 30, 1991.

(2.) THE petitioner joined service as L. D. C. in 1954 and after 13 years of service he was placed under suspension by order dated February 21, 1967 passed by the Principal and Controller of S. M. S. Medical College and attached Hospitals. He was involved in a criminal case. He was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur on November 8, 1983. His conviction was however, set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated June 5, 1984. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated October 22, 1967 (sic October 22, 1970 ). Thus the petitioner has remained under suspension from February 21, 1967 till date i. e. for a period of more than 24 years and 2 months. For 13 years, he had served the Government and for almost twice that period, he has remained under suspension. The inquiry, which was initiated on October 22, 1967 has not proceeded an inch as submited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There may be some element of justification for not proceeding with the inquiry because the petitioner was prosecuted for his alleged involvement in a criminal case, but after acquittal on May 5, 1984, there remained no justification for not concluding the departmental inquiry. The petitioner has stated that no steps have been taken even after June 5, 1984. The total period for which the departmental inquiry has remained pending is now more than 20 years,

(3.) AFTER admission of the writ petition on February 6, 1991, a notice was issued to the respondents and on April 9, 1991, learned Addl. Government Advocate was directed to file reply on or before April 23, 1991. It was made clear that the writ petition will be disposed of at the orders stage. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite an opportunity having been afforded on April 9, 1991 and the learned Deputy Government Advocate again requested for grant of time to file reply.