Hayat Husain Khan vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri S.A. Khan learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Sanjay Bhasin for the State.

The Petitioner asserts that in view of earlier order passed in Writ Petition No. 1389(SB) of 2010 filed by him, since the enquiry had not been completed within a period of four months, as per directive issued vide 16.09.2010, the present enquiry proceedings be quashed including the charge sheet. The Petitioner relies upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of P.N. Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others reported in 1999(17) LCD 24.

In the aforesaid case of P.N. Srivastava(Supra) the enquiry was revived after stipulated period of four months in contemptuous disregard of the Court''s order. The Court considered the case of State of U.P. and Another Vs. Shri Krishna Pandey, where it was laid down that no lawful proceedings can be launched or trial can commence after the time fixed by the statutory rules.

Reliance was also placed upon the case of Major Radha Krishan Vs. Union of India and Others, where the Supreme Court observed that any trial commenced after the period of limitation shall be patently illegal. Further reliance has also been placed upon the case of All India Reporter Karamchari Sangh and Others Vs. All India Reporter Limited and Others, where the Supreme Court has made the following observation:

The decisions of the Supreme Court and the High Courts are almost as important as statutes, rules and regulations passed by the competent legislatures and other bodies since they affect the public generally.

In the instant case, the Division Bench of this Court while passing an order dated 16.09.2010 in the earlier Writ Petition No. 1389(SB) of 2010, wherein the same prayer for quashing of the charge sheet and the enquiry proceedings was made, did not grant the aforesaid prayer but only directed that enquiry be concluded expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months. The word ''preferably'' in the aforesaid order, does not necessary means that it should be completed within four months, if otherwise, it is not possible to do so. If any further time, beyond the time directed in the order, is consumed that will not to be taken as contemptuous disregard of the Court order at the outset, but of-course, there has to be some reason for not completing the enquiry within the aforesaid period. There may be circumstances where despite bonafide efforts on the part of the department, the enquiry could not be completed within a period of four months. The judgment in the case of P.N. Srivastava, thus does not help the Petitioner in any manner.

At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has already submitted reply to the enquiry report and therefore, a direction be issued for completion of enquiry at the earliest.

Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Counsel for the State also submits that since reply has been furnished by the Petitioner, therefore, the appropriate orders will be passed within a period of one month.

We, therefore, dispose of this petition finally with the direction that the appropriate orders, after taking necessary steps, be passed within a period of one month.

Subject to aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of finally.