CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.772 OF 1997 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1. RAM BRIKSH LAL YADAV, SON OF UTTION LAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RANIPUR, P.O. BASUDEVPUR BIRA, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT DARBHANGA 2. SUDHISTA NARAYAN MISHRA SON OF LATE MAHESHWAR MISHRA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MISROULI, POST OFFICE KANSI SINERHI, POLICE STATION SIMRI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 3. KAMLA KANT PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE SHITO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE ASADHI, POLICE STATION NAWADAH, DISTRICT NAWADAH. 4. PULKIT PANDIT SON OF JULAM PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JOKI POLICE STATION BASOPATH, DISTRICT MADHUBANI ---------------------------(Petitioners) Versus 1. BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION A BODY CORPORATE HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TRANSPORT PARIBAHAN BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL ROAD, PATNA-800001. 2. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PARIBAHAN BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL ROAD, PATNA-800001. 3. CHIEF OPERATIONS, HEAD QUARTERS, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PARIBAHAN BHAWAN, BIRCHAND PATEL ROAD, PATNA-1. 4. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DARBHANGA--------------------(Respondents) ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s Kaushalesh Choudhary, Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate. For the Corporation : Mr. Nand Kumar Singh, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation(hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the office order No.363 bearing Memo No.1470 dated 14.10.1996, Annexure-1, whereunder they have been 2 placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding for their failure to achieve the target fixed for collection of toll from the bridge in question. The charge sheet was directed to be served separately afterwards. Having received the charge sheet bearing Memo No.1773 dated 26.9.1996 alleging 27% less collection of toll collection being Rs.5,47,501/- against the target of Rs.7,50,000/-petitioner no.1 submitted his show cause reply under memo No.249 dated 11.10.1996, Annexure-12 asserting that the revised target of toll collection of Rs.7,50,000/- per month is impossible to achieve as during verification it was found that maximum collection of toll from the bridge in question was Rs.23,000/- on 3.7.1996 and the target could not be 7,50,000/-. It was further stated in the show cause reply that the target could not have been revised by more than 10% in the light of the instruction of the Managing Director of the Corporation contained in order no.412 dated 2.3.1994, Annexure-11. It was also submitted in the show cause reply that petitioner no.1 having enhanced the collection by 25 % could not have been proceeded against. Similar reply disputing the allegation was also filed by petitioner nos.2 to 4 which is contained in Annexures-5 and 6 wherefrom it will appear that they also submitted that in view of the reduced traffic coming to the bridge it is difficult for them to achieve the revised target. The cause shown by the petitioners as contained in Annexures-5, 6 and 12 remained pending and they languished in suspension. Highlighting the arbitrary action on the part of the authorities that revised target was impossible to achieve and the suspension order should be recalled the present writ application was filed on 22.1.1997. Matter was taken up for admission by this Court on 11.8.1997 when three weeks’ time was allowed to file counter affidavit, which could 3 not be filed within the time granted and the matter was again adjourned under order dated 30.9.1997 and ultimately after filing of the counter affidavit on 28.10.1997 the matter was admitted for hearing. Perusal of order dated 28.10.1997 indicates that Rule was made returnable within six months. During the pendency of the writ case the authorities, however, were not restrained from concluding the departmental proceeding. In paragraphs-7 and 8 of the counter affidavit statement was made by the deponent that disposal of the departmental proceeding is delayed on account of failure of the petitioners to file their show cause reply. 3. Today during hearing of the writ application statement was made on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner nos.1 and 4 retired w.e.f. 31.12.2000 and 30.6.2007 respectively and suspension of petitioner no.3 has been revoked with effect from 4.8.2008. Counsel for the parties, however, are not aware of the status of petitioner no.2. 4. With reference to the facts noted above, it is submitted that even after passage of more than 13 years of the issue and service of suspension order dated 14.10.1996, Annexure-1 the enquiry proceeding has not been concluded, although, there was no stay granted by this Court at the time of admission of the case from proceeding with and concluding the departmental proceeding. Statement to the contrary made by the Corporation in paragraphs-7 and 8 of the counter affidavit that writ petitioners delayed the progress of enquiry proceeding is absolutely incorrect. The statement made on behalf of the Corporation in paragraphs-7 and 8 of the counter affidavit that petitioners had delayed the proceeding by not submitting their explanation till the date of filing of the counter affidavit and are thereby 4 delaying the departmental proceeding is incorrect in view of the contents of Annexures-5, 6 and 12 which is dated 11.10.1996 and statement to the contrary is the mere ipse dixit of the Legal Assistant of the head office who has sworn the affidavit as the Legal Assistant has not even appended the order sheet of the Inquiry Officer in support of his allegation that disposal of the departmental proceeding was delayed on account of failure of the petitioners to cooperate in the proceeding. It is further submitted that after admission of the writ case under orders dated 28.10.1997 there being no stay granted by this Court, as such, the authorities should have proceeded and concluded the departmental proceeding within a reasonable time. 5. Counsel for the Corporation confirmed the position that during the pendency of the writ case petitioner nos.1 and 4 retired on 31.12.2000 and 30.6.2007 and suspension of petitioner no.3 was revoked under order dated 4.8.2008. He also conceded the position that till date proceeding initiated against the petitioners has not been concluded, although, they had filed their show cause reply as contained in Annexures-5, 6 and 12, which is dated 11.10.1996. 6. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and the Corporation, I have examined the contention of the parties in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Bani Singh and Another, reported in AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1308, whereunder the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that for failure of the authorities to furnish satisfactory explanation for causing inordinate delay in initiating and concluding the departmental proceeding, the departmental proceeding may itself be quashed. In the instant case the Corporation has not 5 considered the show cause reply filed by the petitioners for over 13 years and has allowed petitioner nos.1 and 4 to languish in suspension until the date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2000 and 30.6.2007 respectively and suspension of petitioner no.3 was revoked on 4.8.2008. The proceeding has not yet been concluded and there has been inordinate delay of over 13 years to conclude the same. Delay and indifference to conclude the departmental proceeding for over 13 years is nothing but arbitrary action on the part of the management of the Corporation as from the counter affidavit hardly any reason is discernable which can persuade this Court to allow the authorities to conclude the departmental proceeding even at this belated stage. The authorities of the Corporation having not proceeded with the memo of charge bearing Memo No.1373 dated 26.9.1996, this Court is persuaded to quash the same, which is accordingly, quashed along with suspension order dated 14.10.1996, Annexure-1 with direction to the Corporation to pay the petitioner nos.1 and 4 arrears of salary for the suspension period as also retrial dues, who have already retired and allow petitioner no.3 to continue in service until he attains the age of superannuation and pay him arrears of salary for the period of suspension. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. Patna High Court Dated 22nd April, 2010 AFR/Rajesh (V.N.Sinha, J.)