Satbir Singh Kadian vs Sh. Krishan Mohan

Hemant Gupta, J.—The Petitioner contends that this Court has directed the Respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner within three months, failing which the Petitioner shall be deemed to have been confirmed.

It is pointed out by the Petitioner that soon after the said direction was issued, the Inquiry Officer submitted its report exonerating the Petitioner from the charges leveled but the disciplinary authority has dissented with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and has communicated its dissenting note. Subsequently, an order has been passed on 15.11.2010 whereby the Petitioner has not been confirmed in view of the fact that the major penalty proceedings are pending against the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that there was a mandate to the disciplinary authority to decide the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months. Since the Respondent has not concluded the disciplinary proceedings within time granted by this Court on 19.3.2010, the action of the Respondent is in violation of the order of this Court and thus, the Respondent is in contempt.

The disciplinary authority is competent to dissent with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Having initiated major penalty proceedings against the Petitioner, it cannot be said that the Petitioner would be deemed to be confirmed. The order dated 19.3.2010 passed by this Court, directing the Respondent to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner within a particular time frame is direction in nature. The consequences of confirmation do not follow as a matter of right on non completion of inquiry within three months.

In view of the above, I do not find any case is made out of initiation of the contempt proceedings. The present petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the Petitioner to seek his remedy against the order dated 15.11.2010 in accordance with law.

Dismissed with liberty