STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the State against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 103 of 2013(R). The order has been passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi and the application preferred by the respondent was allowed vide order dated 19th November, 2013, which is at annexure 4 to the memo of this writ petition. While allowing the application preferred by the respondent, the long drawn pending enquiry for the so called misconduct of 1996 has been quashed and set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal mainly for the reason that the cause was stale cause and there was also a direction given previously by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 97 of 2003 dated 16th February, 2006 to complete the departmental proceedings against the respondent, but, as usual, the State of Jharkhand was unable to complete the departmental proceedings and, therefore, Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed and set aside the enquiry. Too much lethargy for longer time is fatal, this is the gist, sum and substance of the impugned order and, therefore, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand submitted that time limit to complete enquiry depends upon the nature of misconduct. Grave the misconduct, larger time should be given to complete the enquiry. It is further submitted by the counsel for the State of Jharkhand that the time has lapsed partly because of State of Jharkhand and partly due to several other factors which has been written in the written statement filed in O.A. No. 103 of 2013(R) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has been mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order. Time and again the letters were written by the State of Jharkhand to the Central Government and there is long correspondence between the Central Government and State Government and, therefore, enquiry could not be completed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in: - -