Delhi High Court
M.C.D. vs N.B. Chauhan on 23 January, 2006
Equivalent citations: 129 (2006) DLT 519, 2007 (1) SLJ 415 Delhi
Author: M Katju
Bench: M Katju, M B Lokur
JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge 26th April, 2004.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same, except where necessary.
3.By means of the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the Memorandum dated 14th February, 1989 issuing a charge-sheet to him. The three charges are as follows:-
STATEMENT OF CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST SH. N.B. CHAUHAN, U.D.C., SLUM WING, DDA.
SHRI N.B. CHAUHAN, U.D.C. while working in the then Central Zone (S&JJ) had remained absent from duty unauthorisedly, from 14.3.1985 to 31.12.1986, without prior sanction of leave and without submitting proper leave applications, in time, with medical certificates, in all cases, where required.
Since N.B. Chauhan further remained absent from 1.1.1987 to 4.2.1988, unauthorisedly and without any leave application or intimation having been received from him.
While Shri N.B. Chauhan had remained absent unauthorisedly since 14.3.85, he had retained with him without any authority, two G-8 books containing receipts No. 270701 to 270800 and receipts No.38501 to 38600 against which he had also collected Rs. 34,238.65 and this amount still remains unaccounted by Sh.Chauhan in the Departments' accounts.
By the aforesaid acts and omissions, Sh. N.B. Chauhan failed to maintain absolute intergrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner un-becoming of a public servant and thereby contravened Rule 3(1) of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rule, 1964 as made applicable to employees of D.D.A., Slum Wing.
4. Thus, the first charge relates to unauthorised absence of the petitioner from 14th March, 1985 to 31st December, 1986, the second charge relates to his unauthorised absence from 1st January, 1987 to 4th February, 1988 and the third charge relates to unauthorised detention of two G-8 books containing receipts against which the petitioner had collected Rs.34,238.65 which amount remains unaccounted for.
5. It appears that criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 409 I.P.C. by Police Station Paharganj but the petitioner was acquitted in the same vide judgment dated 10th August, 1999 (Annexure `L') to the writ petition.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was considerable delay in holding the enquiry and hence the charge-sheet should be quashed.
7. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the M.C.D. and we have perused the same. It is stated in para 4 of the same that there was no delay in holding the enquiry. The departmental enquiry commenced on 14th February, 1989 when a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The charges were of a very grave nature.
8. The petitioner has been charged for not accounting for public funds collected by him through two G-8 books. `G-8 books' is the nomenclature given to the receipt books through which an employee collects charges payable by others to the concerned authorities. The petitioner had not accounted for two G-8 Books although the amount had been collected by him through the said Books. He was also charged for absence without leave for the subsequent period.
9. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner appeared before the said enquiry and filed his reply. In his reply dated 17th March, 1989, he stated that he requested vide his application dated 17th March, 1989 that the Department should show him the records. However, by that time the records had been seized by the Police and had become case property and hence could not be released. The said records were released only after termination of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner vide order dated 10th August, 1999. After receipt of the said documents, the enquiry has commenced and Shri S.K. Mukherjee has been appointed as the Enquiry Officer, since the earlier Enquiry Officer had retired.
10. While it is true that there is no limitation period fixed by any Statute for completing the enquiry, at the same time, we are of the opinion that ordinarily an enquiry should be completed within a reasonable period. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this connection and it all depends on the facts of the case i.e., the gravity of the offence, the reason for the delay etc.
11. In the present case, the charges are very grave and hence, in our opinion, the charge-sheet should not have been quashed on the mere ground of delay in holding the enquiry. The records had been seized by the Police in the criminal case and hence there was some difficulty in continuing with the enquiry. Now that the records have been released, the enquiry can be completed.
12. Apart from the above, since writ is a discretionary remedy, we are of the opinion that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this was not a fit case for exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution.
13. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and we direct that the enquiry be completed preferably within six months of production of a copy of this order before the concerned Authority. Appeal allowed.
