UNION OF INDIA Vs. SATPIL ANTIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition is directed against order of the Tribunal dt. 11.05.2011 followed with subsequent order dt. 29.02.2012 rejecting the second application filed for extension of time for concluding departmental enquiry against the respondent delinquent.

(2.) THE brief facts that culled out from the averments on record and relevant for the present purpose are that the respondent initially joined service as Junior Engineer and while posted at Sriganganagar in the year 1982 -85 got completed the work of MAX -I. T.E. Building and during construction the Executive Engineer & Superintending Engineer inspected the work from time to time and on completion of work after satisfying with the quality and specification on 04.06.1985, the competent authority issued the certificate. However, for the alleged delinquency he was served with the charge -sheet along with memorandum dt. 16.01.2007 after almost 22 years of the alleged delinquency, which came to be served upon the delinquent on 25.01.2007 holding departmental enquiry U/R 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the allegation against him was that he failed to supervise the construction work of MAX -I, TE building and violated the provisions of CPWD Manual and failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty which amounts to misconduct U/R. 3(1)(i) (ii) & (iii) of CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules, 1964. Since there was inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary action against the respondent delinquent and his further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was also withheld because of the pending enquiry he approached the learned Tribunal by filing Original Application -28/2007 for quashing and setting aside the enquiry proceedings initiated against him.

(3.) INDISPUTABLY the applicant Union of India failed to conclude the enquiry within the time stipulated by the learned Tribunal in its order dt. 11.05.2011 and moved MA -334/2011 and it can be noticed from the contents of the application seeking extension of time, the only reason assigned for extension was that the charge officer met with an accident on 21.05.2009 and his spinal cord was badly damaged and for the aforesaid reason the enquiry could not be completed. However, there was nothing on record that the delinquent sought time or adjournment in the pending proceedings. In counter, the respondent -delinquent present in person submits that time and again he submitted application addressed to the Enquiry Officer and to the Department to conclude the disciplinary enquiry at the earliest possible since the pendency not only jeopardize his further promotion but also withheld his retiral benefits to which he was otherwise entitled for under the law.