CWP No. 11624 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11624 of 1989 Date of decision March 11 , 2011 Amrik Singh ....... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. T. S. Dhindsa , Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Reeta Kohli , Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The writ petition is a challenge to constitution of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner who held the office of Tehsildar at the relevant time and superannuated subsequently in the year 1989. The charge sheet had been issued to him on 20.5.1983 on the basis of one complaint from Darshan Singh in respect of sale of land by auction that was held by the petitioner in December 1964. Being an aggrieved person at the auction Darshan Singh challenged the auction before this Court in CWP No. 787 of 1965 which was dismissed on 1.9.1967. In a situation where the alleged action of the petitioner was a subject of a challenge before this Court when the authorities also had notice of the CWP No. 11624 of 1989 2 auction. The charge sheet could not have been levied in the year 1984. The delay was nearly 17 years and there was simply no justification for such delay. 2. Learned counsel refers to a decision of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another 1990 (supp) SCC 738 that held as follows:- The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage.” The observations made above were affirmed through a subsequent decision in M. V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India and others 2006 5 SCC 88 (paras 16 and 17). The impugned action is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. 3. It is contended that on account of pendency of proceedings the retiral benefits had been withheld. The same be paid forthwith within a period of four weeks. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 11, 2011 archana