BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is serving as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation, Department Rajasthan, under the Chief Engineer, Command Area Development, Bikaner. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner is one of the senior most Junior Engineers working in the Irrigation Department and is placed at serial No. 30 in the last seniority list dated 28.11.92 published by the Irrigation. The next promotional post in, the Department is that of Assistant Engineer from the quota of Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) and the grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 25.9.91 he was served with a charge sheet containing the memo of charges and the statement of allegations leveled therein vide Annex -2. It has been contended by the petitioner in this regard that the charge -sheet which was' served on him did hot contain the documents which had been relied upon by the respondents for framing the charges and as a result of which the defence of the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced. As a consequence of this the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to make effective representation to the Department. Subsequently vide order dated 25.9.91 departmental enquiry was directed to be initiated by the respondents against the petitioner by having resort to Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (For short 'the Rules') vide Annex -3. It has been further contended in this regard that the joint enquiry was directed to be initiated by the respondents against the petitioner as well as one Shri R.S. Gupta who has since already retired from the service in the year 1991 itself and notwithstanding the fact that an enquiry officer was appointed no steps have been taken by the said enquiry officer to conduct and complete the enquiry against the petitioner.

(2.) DURING the course of hearing it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have in gross violation of the Rules had issued the charge - -sheet to the petitioner belatedly on 25th September, 1991 and 5th July, 1993 in respect of the allegations which pertain to the period from 1974 to 1982 and the respondents were not justified in issuing the same in absence of any satisfactory explanation on the record. It was further contended by the learned counsel that the impugned charge - -sheet is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dr. B.M. Bohra v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1991 (1) RLR 383, wherein this Court while dealing with an identical question had deal with the interpretation of a Departmental Circular dated 17th March, 1986 which provides for expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the delinquent. Specific procedure has been envisaged in the said circular in respect of departmental enquiries. The said circular envisages that if departmental enquiry is ordered, the following time schedule shall be strictly adhered to - -

(3.) IN the matter of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in : (1995)IILLJ679SC , the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was whether the delay in filing of a charge -sheet against an employee vitiates the charges and if so whether the Court should apply balancing process i.e. weighing the factors for and against and taking decision on the totality of the circumstances ? In this case the Superintendent of Jail was charge - -sheeted by the Department, after inordinate delay of 5 1/2 years for being responsible for escape of prisoners involved death of a number of persons and there were factors for and against him in the departmental enquiry. Prosecution evidence was completed. It was held by the Apex Court that charges and, the appointment of the Enquiry Officer should not have been quashed but in view of the introdinate delay in initiating the enquiry against the petitioner, the delinquent officer, in this turn should have been considered for promotion and, if found fit, granted promotion subject to the result of the departmental enquiry. Further the Apex Court fixed the time limit of 8 months within which the departmental enquiry was directed to be completed failing which the same would be deemed to have dropped. The Apex Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in the matter of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak reported in : 1992CriLJ2717 . On the question of delay in serving the charge memo on the petitioner, it was held by the Apex Court as under - - Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, malafides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained the court may well interfere and quash the Charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a process of balancing.