Kali Charan Tripathi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1853 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8286 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Kali Charan Tripathi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Pubilic Works Deptt. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
and 
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5528 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Kali Charan Tripathi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Pubilic Works Deptt. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 
 

 
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

C. M. Application No.3 of 2023- for correction of order dated 10.1.2023.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The cause shown is sufficient. The application is allowed.

Order dated 10.1.2023 is corrected to the extent that the corrected order dated 10.1.2023 shall be read in both the connected petitions i.e. WRIT - A No. - 8286 of 2022 and WRIT - A No. - 5528 of 2022 both. The corrected order is as under:-

"Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8286 of 2022

Petitioner :- Kali Charan Tripathi

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 6 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

and

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5528 of 2022

Petitioner :- Kali Charan Tripathi

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Pubilic Works Deptt. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 6 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.

C. M.Application No.2 of 2022-for correction of the order dated 15.12.2022.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner.

The cause shown is sufficient. Application is allowed. Order dated 15.12.2022 is corrected. The corrected order is as under:-

1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. As the facts are similar in nature, so with the consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are clubbed and decided together.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2006 and 05.10.2006 passed by the respondents thereby initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner with regard to alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner whereby the allegations against the petitioner with regard to alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner and the allegation against the petitioner was widening and strengthening in N.H.-25 (via Jail road to Jhansi Road).

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that he was initially appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) after being selected by the Public Service Commission in the year 1990 and joined initially at Kanpur. On 20.09.2006 by means of impugned order the petitioner was placed under suspension with regard to illegalities in widening and strengthening of National Highway-25 by the order of Engineer-in-Chief, P.W.D.

5. It is further submitted that some other acts of illegalities were alleged to be committed by the petitioner with regard to widening and strengthening of Bilraya Panwari Marg (Orai to Rath) where again the petitioner was placed under suspension by means of order dated 29.01.2007. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order of suspension dated 20.09.2006 by filing Writ Petition no. 8546 (SS) of 2006 where an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner dated 12.10.2006, and the order of suspension. Against the order dated 29.01.2007, petitioner filed another writ petition being Writ Petition no. 1046 (SS) of 2007 where again by means of order dated 14.02.2007, the interim order was passed staying the order of suspension.

6. Both the writ petitions were subsequently disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to conclude the inquiry within a period of three months and till the conclusion of inquiry, the order of suspension was directed to be kept in abeyance. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that no charge-sheet was served in either of the two matters to the petitioner in compliance of the order of this Court.

7. It is in the meanwhile the petitioner was also promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in 2018 and transfer to the Construction Division-I, P.W.D., Mahoba and retired form services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2022.

8. The grievances raised by the petitioner in the present case that due to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner the post retiral dues have not been paid.This Court had noticed that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner for the last 15 to 16 years which is extremely long length of time and no charge-sheet has also been given to the petitioner and consequently a response was sought from the respondents about the status of the inquiry.

9. Today, when the matter has been taken up, it has been informed that no progress has been made in the inquiry neither any chargesheet has been given and according to the departmental records, the disciplinary proceedings are still pending. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in 2006.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that a person can be placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. It is stated that suspension order was itself illegal and arbitrary which was kept in abeyance and the respondents were directed to conclude the inquiry within three months by means of order of this Court in 2014. Despite the judicial order having been passed, the respondents did not proceed with the inquiry nor serve a charge-sheet to the petitioner which clearly indicates that there was no such contemplation as recorded in the order of suspension and hence the disciplinary proceedings were never ever initiated against the petitioner. This is not a case where quashing has been sought for disciplinary proceedings after issuance of the charge-sheet but this Court is of the considered view that the disciplinary are still bound, inasmuch as the charge-sheet has not been submit against the petitioner.

11.Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Forest Department and Others Vs. Adbul Rasool Chaudhary, 2009 (7) SCC 305 the findings recorded by the Court are quoted herein below :-

"16. The next issue is with regard to delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings. In our view the delay in concluding the domestic enquiry proceedings is not fatal to the proceedings. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should be permitted to contunue.

17. This Court in Registrar, Coop. Societies v. Sachindra Nath Pandey has explained the various circumstances when the departmental proceedings can be directed to be closed, it is worthwhile to refer to the observations made by this Court in this regard :

"5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the first respondent adopted a course of total non-cooperation and procrastination and that in spite of repeated opportunities being given he did not respond or participate in the inquiry. The first respondent did not even care to file an explanation or reply to the memo of charges. In the circumstances, the authorities had no option but to hold that the charges are proved. Even after the report of the inquiry officer was submitted, a number of opportunities were given which he again failed to avail of. It is submitted that though the whole history of the case has been set out in the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court, the learned Judge did not notice any of those facts and yet allowed the writ petition on an untenable ground. It is further contended that according to Regulation 68 of the Cooperative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976, it was not obligatory upon the inquiry officer to record the evidence of the witnesses where the first respondent did neither submit a reply nor an explanation to the memo of charges. Through he was apprised of the inquiry, he did not care to attend in spite of repeated opportunities. In such a situation, he cannot complain of not recording the evidence of witnesses and other evidence....."

12. Considering the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered view that the sword of damocles of pending proceedings of cannot hang on the head of the delinquent employee endlessly. Disciplinary proceedings should be initiated and concluded expeditiously in a time bound manner and in this regard there are various government orders which are provided for time frame within which the disciplinary proceedings/department proceedings are required to be concluded.

13. It is further in the exigency of administration that the inquiry should be conducted in the time bound manner and the outcome of the inquiry should also be expeditious so that the delinquent employee also knows about his fate as to whether he would be guilty or not guilty about the same.

14. In light of the above, considering the fact that the disciplinary proceedings have not even commenced and hence order of respondents initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner dated 20.09.2006 and 05.10.2006 are hereby set aside.

15. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that during his service, he has not granted the benefit of ACP and annual increments on account of the fact that disciplinary proceedings are pending against him and also that his entire post retiral dues have not been paid to him. These are matters for which liberty is granted to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the competent authority within two weeks from today in case such a representation is made, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say within a further period of six weeks thereafter by reasons and speaking orders in accordance with law in communicate the same to the petitioner and while deciding the representation he will proceed on the premise that no disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioner. The respondents are further to pay post retiral dues expeditiously in accordance with law in next eight weeks.

16. In light of the above, the both writ petitions are partly allowed."

Order Date :- 18.1.2023 (Alok Mathur, J.)

RKM.