Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home vs Gopal Lal Meena And Ors

Pankaj Bhandari,J

Appellants have preferred this Special Appeal aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby application filed by the appellants seeking extension of time to pass final order was dismissed.

In brief, the factual matrix of the case are that petitioner- respondent was served with a charge-sheet dated 29.5.2017 under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as "Rules 1958") on charges of gross negligence and committing serious misconduct in discharge of his duties while working as Superintendent of Police SC/ST Cell, District Dausa. Respondent-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3367/2018 challenging the charge-sheet dated 29.5.2017. The matter was listed before learned Single Judge on 25.01.2019. Counsel for the respondent-petitioner limited his prayer to the extent of seeking directions to the respondents to complete the enquiry proceedings. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.01.2019 disposed of the writ petition with directions to the appellants to pass final orders in relation to the departmental proceedings within a period of four months.

The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted enquiry report on 22.04.2019 but as, examination and analysing of the enquiry report was likely to take time, the Appellant No.2 moved Misc. Application No.168/2019 seeking extension of six months to complete the departmental proceedings and for passing final order. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order has dismissed the Misc.Application. The respondent-petitioner participated in the departmental proceedings and final order in the departmental enquiry was passed on 11.09.2019.

It is contended by counsel for the appellants that the appellants prior to the expiry of the time fixed-up by the learned Single Judge have moved an application seeking extension of time, but the said application was not listed before the Court. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the continuation of the departmental proceedings tantamount to disobeying of the orders passed by the Court, since the appellants had moved an application and the respondent-petitioner participated in the proceedings. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has also erred in disallowing the application for extension of time as, a litigant cannot be punished for the lapses on part of the Court in not taking-up the application. It is also contended that the final orders have been passed in the departmental proceedings.

Counsel for the respondent-petitioner contends that a departmental proceeding cannot be continued for an indefinite period. Reliance in this regard is placed on Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Ors. (AIR 2016 SC 101) wherein the Apex Court has held that the employer should make an endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry within a reasonable time and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for 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.

It is argued by counsel for the respondent-petitioner that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.01.2019 directed the appellants to conclude the enquiry within a period of four months. It was further made clear in the order that if the respondents do not pass final orders in relation to the said departmental proceedings, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. It is contended that since the departmental proceedings were not concluded within four months, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the application filed by the appellants for extension of time.

We have considered the contentions and have perused the impugned order.

Learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.01.2019 gave four months time to the appellants to conclude the enquiry and pass orders. The enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, but as the appellants were not in a position to pass orders on the enquiry report, an application was moved before the Court for extension of time. The said application was not taken-up by the Court and was ultimately taken-up by the learned Single Judge on 04.09.2019 and on the said date the same was dismissed.

The learned Single Judge has not taken note of the fact that after filing the application for extension of time, the departmental proceedings continued and the respondent-petitioner participated in the same. The learned Single Judge has also not taken note of the fact that the charges were found to be proved against the respondent-petitioner and the final order was passed on 11.09.2019, whereby one grade increment of respondent- petitioner was withheld without cumulative effect.

We are of considered view that the learned Single Judge should have allowed the application for extension of time, as the Apex Court in Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Ors. (Supra) has held that the time for concluding the inquiry can be extended if the same was not concluded due to certain unavoidable causes.

The impugned order deserves to be set aside, as final orders have been passed and respondent-petitioner has participated in the departmental proceedings. Respondent-petitioner would be free to take recourse to the remedies available to him in accordance with law.

The Special Appeal is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is set-aside.

All pending applications stand disposed.