Satyaveer Singh vs State

Application for early listing is allowed.

Instant appeal has been filed against the order of the ld. Single Judge dt. 16.12.2013.

The appellant joined service as Constable on 11.5.1983 and in the month of November, 1991, he was posted in Police Lines, Jhunjhunu. On 20.12.1991, as alleged, after getting permission, he left for his village and thereafter did not turn up for almost a year and no intimation was sent by him to the department about his whereabouts & for his long willful absence. He was placed under suspension vide order dt. 25.5.1992 and memorandum along with statement of allegation dt. 3.8.1992 was served upon him initiating enquiry u/R.16 of CCA Rules, 1958. After holding enquiry, the enquiry officer held him guilty and the disciplinary authority punished him with the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dt. 10.12.1992. After it was assailed by filing appeal before the appellate authority, the appellant approached this Court by filing writ petition assailing the order of dismissal from service.

After hearing counsel for the parties, the ld. Single Judge arrived to a conclusion that the procedure which has been followed in the departmental enquiry was not in conformity with the Scheme of Rules, 1958 and as 21 years rolled by in between the order of dismissal and in the fitness of things, the ld. Single Judge thought it appropriate that let the enquiry may relate back to the place from where he was deprived of his right of fair procedure of enquiry and the stage where violation of natural justice was committed and time bound scheme was directed by the ld. Single Judge in order impugned dt. 16.12.2013.

It has been informed to this Court that after the domestic enquiry was re-initiated from the stage it was left where there was violation of natural justice, it has been reprocessed and the statement of departmental witnesses have been recorded and it is for the appellant to submit his defence. The appellant submits and undertakes that the next date in the departmental enquiry is 25.7.2014 and he will furnish his written reply on the said date and he is not inclined to have the statement of any further defence witness to be recorded in the pending enquiry.

We have heard the parties in person and do not find any error being committed by the ld. Single Judge which requires interference. At the same time, we consider appropriate that since the appellant has given undertaking to the Court to furnish his written reply on 25.7.2014, the date on which the enquiry is fixed by the enquiry officer, it is expected from the respondent to finally conclude the enquiry within three months thereafter and final conclusion/order be communicated to the appellant.

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.