State of M.P. and Another vs Dr. Suresh Chandra Saxena and Another

S.S. Jha, J.

This petition is filed by the State challenging the order passed by M.P. Administrative Tribunal Bench Gwalior in Original Application No. 1628/99.

Brief facts in the case are that respondent Dr. S.C. Saxena was holding the post of Professor in the Government Ayurvedic College at Gwalior. He filed an Original Application before M.P. Administrative Tribunal bearing O.A. No. 66/98 praying therein that departmental enquiry initiated against him be quashed. Tribunal disposed of the petition directing State to complete the departmental enquiry within a period of two months from the date of the order and shall communicate the result of such departmental enquiry to the applicant. The order reads as under :

With the said observation, the petition be and is hereby disposed of finally with the direction to the respondents that they shall conclude the departmental enquiry positively within a period of two months from the date of this order and shall communicate the result of such departmental enquiry to the applicant unless the time is specifically extended by this Tribunal.

When departmental enquiry was not completed within the said period, respondent filed another petition challenging for quashing of the charge sheet. After filing of the petition enquiry was concluded and final order of termination of service was passed by Disciplinary Authority on 21.2.2000 and Tribunal has held that since enquiry was not concluded within the time frame fixed by it in O.A. No. 66/98, therefore the order of termination is void ab initio and allowed the application. However, on the contempt application for not concluding the enquiry within time, Tribunal has exonerated the contemners from the contempt proceedings.

Counsel for petitioner-State submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is apparently contrary to law. Finding of the Tribunal that order of termination is void ab initio deserves to be set aside.

Counsel for petitioner placed reliance in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, In this case Apex Court deleted the bar of limitation on the ground that fixing a time limit amounts to judicial legislation which is not permissible. It is further held in this case that directions prescribing time limit run counter to the Constitution Bench Decision While referring to the judgment in the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak it is held that it is neither advisable nor feasible to draw or prescribe an outer time limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. It is further held that court while remanding the case to the trial Court for further trial should not fix the time limit for disposal of the case. The directions for fixing a time are contrary to law and unconstitutional. In the light of aforesaid judgment it is to be seen whether Tribunal can fix a fixed an outer limit for concluding the departmental enquiry. Tribunal has not cared to go through the record of the disciplinary enquiry proceeding and has not cared to see the reasons why enquiry could not be concluded within the time frame fixed by the Tribunal. Counsel for petitioner further submitted that before the Tribunal respondent has not challenged the order of termination, therefore Tribunal has gravely erred in setting aside the order of termination. Respondent had departmental remedy against the order of termination. Respondent has not filed any appeal against the said order of termination and has not challenged the order before the Tribunal. Therefore, order of Tribunal deserves to be quashed.

Shri R.A. Roman, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that once time is fixed by the Tribunal and unless petitioners had sought for extension of time they could not continue with the enquiry and pass final orders of termination. He submitted that the order of termination passed in violation of the orders of the Tribunal has rightly been held to be a void order and prayed for dismissal of petition with cost. Counsel for respondent further submitted that in pursuance of the orders passed by the Tribunal respondent was reinstated and has now retired from service. Respondent is also receiving the pension, therefore this petition has rendered infructuous.

We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. We have also perused the application filed by the respondent before the Administrative Tribunal. Before the Administrative Tribunal respondent claimed following reliefs in para 9 of the application, which is reproduced below :

(i) that the charge sheet Annexure A/1 may kindly be quashed;

(ii) that, the respondents be further directed to consider the other claims of the applicant which have been withheld because of pendency of departmental enquiry;

(iii) Any other reliefs which are just and proper, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit. may kindly be allowed;

(iv) Costs may also be awarded.

From bare reading of the relief sought it is apparent that claim of respondent was for quashing of the charge sheet. On going through the entire application we find that respondent has not prayed for quashing of order of termination. It appears that subsequently the respondent has moved an application and by way of application he has filed the copy of order of termination. Respondent has not prayed for quashing of the order of termination in the petition. Respondent has also applied for stay of departmental proceedings. The prayer for stay was not considered. Thus, Tribunal has not. stayed the further proceedings in the departmental enquiry. Therefore, the order of termination could not have been declared as void ab initio. Order passed was subject to appeal by the delinquent employee. Neither he has filed any departmental appeal challenging the order of termination, or he has challenged the order of termination before the Tribunal. Only prayer before the Tribunal was for quashing of the charge sheet. Even under Sub section 4 of Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the proceedings could not have abated. Sub section 4 of section 19 provides that any proceeding for the redressal of grievance of the employee pending before the authorities shall abate on admission of the petition before the Tribunal. It is further clarified that the proceeding of appeal or representation before authorities shall not be decided without the leave of the Tribunal. There is no bar under Sub Section 4 of Section 19 of the Act to proceed with the departmental enquiry as departmental enquiry is not the grievance of the petitioner. Therefore there is no irregularity or illegality in passing of the final order. It may be seen that the departmental enquiry was for financial irregularities committed by respondent. Many a time when time is fixed for concluding enquiry then delinquent employee try to delay the disciplinary proceedings or there are other unavoidable circumstances due to which enquiry can not be concluded within the time fixed. Therefore, merely on the ground of delay in completing the departmental enquiry and imposing punishment, the order of punishment will not become void.

Therefore, we quash the order passed in O.A. 1628/99 and hold that the application for quashing of charge sheet filed before the tribunal has rendered infructuous after the order of termination and the application filed before the Tribunal is dismissed and order Annexure P-1 passed by Tribunal is quashed. Consequently petition succeeds and is allowed without any orders as to costs.