AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy
The present, petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ''B'' Group is considered for final disposal, having regard to the facts and circumstances.
The present petitioner is working as a District Manager with the Corporation represented by the first respondent. It transpires that when he was discharging his duties as the District Manager of Raichur Unit, allegations were made of certain irregularities and a charge sheet was issued as on 22.11.2004, to which a reply had been submitted. Thereafter an Enquiry Officer has been appointed. There was no further progress. The petitioner would be attaining the age of superannuation by April 2012. The petitioner complains that the enquiry which has been instituted in the year 2004 has not attained any progress and therefore, his apprehension that he would reach the age of superannuation even before the enquiry is completed and the long pendency of the same is inexplicable and causes agony to the petitioner and therefore he is before this Court.
The learned Counsel who has entered appearance for respondent No.1 would submit that it is true that there has been a delay in the enquiry'' proceedings being conducted. This is on account of several reasons. One of which, was that the documents relevant for the enquiry were also required in a parallel criminal proceedings and since the same was pending before a Criminal Court, the enquiry could not be proceeded with, in the absence of those documents. The second reason was that the earlier Enquiry Officer who was appointed does not continue to be the Enquiry Officer and it is the second respondent who has now been appointed. There is now progress in the enquiry, in that, the charges have been drawn up and that the enquiry shall go on with expedition and hence, he would submit that the petition may be disposed of with appropriate directions.
Since it is the ease of the petitioner that he would attain the age of superannuation in April 2012, it is appropriate that the enquiry proceedings be completed forthwith.
In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed and since there is no denial that there has been inordinate delay in the completion of the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry shall be completed within a period of three months, that is by the end of February 2012, in order that there is sufficient time for the petitioner to challenge the order, if any, that may be passed against him.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with that direction.