AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. who has appeared on advance notice for the respondents.
The petitioner has served in the post of Superintendent of Jail under the Home(Jail) Department, Agartala and he has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.01.2016 [afternoon]. When the petitioner was in service, by the memorandum under No.F.X-469/IGP/2015/4199-4200 dated 02.07.2015 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition], a disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against him. The petitioner denied all the charge as brought against him by the said memorandum dated 02.07.2015. As a result, the full-fledged inquiry was instituted. The inquiry authority had filed the report on 24.01.2019 in Case No.119/INQ/CDI/Jail/16 holding that against the delinquent officer, the allegation of mis-conduct has been found partially correct. The petitioner was asked to submit the representation, if any, in terms of Rule 15(1) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. The petitioner had filed that representation on 18.08.2015 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition].
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that despite the representations made to the various authorities having regard to the memorandum under No.F.3(28)-GA(AR)/99(S-1) dated 17.07.2004 [Annexure-9 to the writ petition], no further action has been taken and even no retiral benefits has been released for pendency of the said departmental action.
Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that if a reasonable time is granted, the disciplinary authority will pass the appropriate order without further delay. It is really surprise that the respondents have raised such plea of providing reasonable time. It is the obligation of the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceeding within a shorter time.
Having due regard to the stage of the departmental proceeding, this court is of the view that 1(one) month would be adequate enough for purpose of completing the disciplinary proceeding.
Accordingly, the disciplinary authority is directed to take the final call or decision on due consideration of the representation filed by the petitioner against the finding of the inquiry authority. Such decision shall be taken within a period of 1(one) month from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order.
In terms thereof, this writ petition stands partly allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.