IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6110 of 2001 ARBIND MEHTA JALWI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 6.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental proceeding on six charges. An enquiry report dated 4.8.2000 came to be submitted at Annexure-7 to the writ application of exoneration. Orders for holding fresh enquiry were passed on 16.2.2001 appended at Annexure- 11. The challenge in the writ application is to the initiation of the fresh departmental proceedings. The second argument is of the undue long pendency of the fresh departmental proceedings which remains pending till date in spite of the observation of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12854 of 2000 when after conclusion of the earlier enquiry dated 4.8.2000 no final decision was being taken. Learned counsel for the State submits that some of the charges are serious and therefore respondents may be directed to dispose of the departmental proceedings within a time frame to be fixed by the Court. This Court gone through the report of the exoneration dated 4.8.2000. There is no consideration of the case of the prosecution. The enquiry officer appears to have proceeded simply on the charges and the defence submitted by the petitioner. This Court therefore finds no error in the impugned order dated 16.2.2001 directing fresh enquiry. The order is reasoned and merits no interference. - 2 - This Court is satisfied that charges 2 and 4 are of a nature serious which does not persuade this Court to interfere with the pending departmental proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay to preclude the respondents at this stage. The writ application is disposed with the direction that the respondents are directed to conclude the departmental proceedings within a period of five months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed ex parte also in the event of absence of adequate cooperation from the petitioner. But, before proceeding ex parte, the enquiry officer/ disciplinary authority as the case may be is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order recording the satisfaction by giving reasons of the need to proceed ex parte. If in either event, the departmental proceedings are not complete within five months, the respondents shall be precluded from proceeding with the fresh departmental proceedings ordered on 16.2.2001. In that event, the petitioner shall be deemed to have been exonerated and shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)