Smt. Neelam Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 422 Chatt

                                         -1-


                                                                                  AFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                              WPS No. 2706 of 2021
      Smt. Neelam Dewangan W/o Shri Rupendra Dewangan Aged About 35
      Years R/o Sector No. 17, Quarter No. E-1-14, Near Construction House,
      New Raipur Police Station And Post Rakhi Atal Nagar, District Raipur
      Chhattisgarh

                                                                     ---- Petitioner

                                       Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Women And
      Child Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And
      Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

   2. Director Office Of Directorate, Department Of Women And Child
      Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post
      Rakhi, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

   3. Collector/enquiry Officer Office Of Collector, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari
      Chhattisgarh

   4. District Programme Officer/presenting Officer Department Of Women And
      Child Development, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh

                                                                  ---- Respondents

      For Petitioner               :      Shri Abhishek Pandey with
                                          Ms. Deepika Sannat, Advocates
      For State                    :      Ms. Akansha Jain, Dy. GA

                       Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                Order on Board

21.06.2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is confined to the

prolonged departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner.

2. The facts in the case in brief is that the petitioner was working under the

respondents as District Women and Child Development Officer. On the

charges of financial irregularities the petitioner was issued with a charge

sheet on 23.09.2017 and subsequently the petitioner's service was placed

under suspension vide order dated 22.07.2017. Later on, amended charge

sheet was issued adding few more charges against the petitioner and

meanwhile respondents also have appointed an Enquiry Officer and

Presenting Officer to conduct and to present the departmental enquiry. It is

almost four years now except for the issuance of the charge sheet no

further substantial development has occurred in the departmental enquiry

as has been contended by the petitioner. In view of the prolonged period

that has transpired without departmental enquiry getting concluded the

present writ petition has been filed. The limited prayer that petitioner has

sought for is for appropriate direction to the respondents to conclude the

departmental enquiry at the earliest within the stipulated period.

3. State counsel on the other hand opposing the petition submits that initially

when the departmental enquiry was contemplated the petitioner was

placed under suspension. However, realizing the aspect that the

departmental enquiry is not getting concluded at the earliest, the

respondents have themselves revoked the suspension order and petitioner

has been taken back in service and as such petitioner should not have any

grievance on the pendency of the departmental enquiry.

4. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of

records, the facts narrated by the petitioner seems to be admitted and not

in dispute. Four years time is a pretty long time for any departmental

enquiry to be concluded. Moreover, in the instant case if the contention of

the petitioner is to be believed the delay has not occurred on account of

any administrative reasons or for any practical difficulty but on account of

sheer inaction on the part of respondents, particularly the Enquiry Officer

not proceeding with the enquiry. One can understand if the departmental

enquiry is effectively conducted and it could not be concluded then

perhaps there can be justifiable reasons for the respondents to take time

in concluding the same. However, if the enquiry has not progressed

substantially, the delay in the concluding of the departmental enquiry at

times becomes detrimental to the career prospect of an employee.

5. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Premnath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court

of Delhi and another, (2015) 16 SCC 415, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court dealing with the issue of prolonged departmental enquiry has in

paragraph 26 to 28 has held as under :-

"26. Time and again, this Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the

employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the

delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by

taking priority measures. In cases where the delinquent is placed under

suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the

more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded

in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and

prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee.

27. As a matter of experience, we often notice that after completion of

the inquiry, the issue involved therein does not come to an end because

if the findings of the inquiry proceedings have gone against the

delinquent employee, he invariably pursues the issue in Court to

ventilate his grievance, which again consumes time for its final

conclusion.

28. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that

every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor

to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against

the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to

such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within

six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to

conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings

within the time frame then efforts should be made to conclude within

reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature

of inquiry but not more than a year."

6. Given the authoritative decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also

taking into consideration the substantial period of four years time that have

lapsed after the date of issuance of charge sheet, this Court is of the

opinion that writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to

make all endeavours to conclude the departmental enquiry within the

further period of 6 months time starting from today failing which the

respondents are directed to ensure taking appropriate steps in the light of

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Premnath Bali (Supra)

to drop the proceedings in case if they are unable to proceed with the

departmental enquiry for justifiable reasons and in case if there are any

bonafide, genuine and cogent reasons available on the administrative side

then also appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that

departmental enquiry is expedited as early as possible.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit