HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER Wnt Petition No, 1605of2006 S.K. Tigga S/o Late J. Tigga, Aged about 61 years, Retired DSP, Bilaspur At present-Ring Road N0. 2, House No. 3/569 Shanti Nagar, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home (Police) Mantralaya DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG). 2. Director General ofPolice, Police HQ, Raipur (CG). 3. Superintendent ofPolice, Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG). 4. Dista-ict Prosecution Officer Distt. Janjgir Champa (CG). 5. Accounts Officer Office of the Director Treasuries Accts.& Pension, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER (Passed on tbis_2^_ day of'Jiine, 2008) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ/direction for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 06.09.2003 (Annexure P/5) and order dated 03.09.2001 (Annexure P/3), whereby, the pensionery benefits of the petitioner have been withheld on account ofpendency ofenquiry against the petitioner. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime) and posted at Janjgir Champa. The petitioner was the investigating officer in respect of Crime No. 367/2000 registered against the report of the complaint made by one Shobharam on 23.10.2000. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, while framing the charges under the provisions of Section 325/323 and 34 of thf Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), in criminal case No. 572/01 on 03.09.2001 (Annexure P/3), observed that the investigation was suspicious. A copy of the same was sent to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh. On the basis of above stated observation made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, a charge-sheet dated 06.09.2003 (Annexure P/5) was issued, which is impugned herein. The petitioner requested for supply ofnecessary documents vide letter dated 26.09.2003 (Annexure P/6). Despite request, no papers were supplied to the petitioner. It is clear from correspondence ^^^^^^^^S^^/SI^^S^i^^SSSSlSSSSSg^i •sopsnfpuB Aimbus ptusinijredsp jo ssodind oiseq sip siBsjsp 'soipnfsjd pssmo &B\SQ •^snopipsdxs pspnpuoo sje 'Xire ji 'gmpusd sSuipssoojd ^.reui(diosip ^qi }q3u ^ s^q ss^o^dms sqj^ -ayep dp psusddeq ssq §uiqiou OS(E 'jsgesjsqj, 'SOOZ'OT'IE uc> uoiienumKdns jo 3§B sq} SumrenE uo SOIAJSS uio-g pajpsj jsaopipd sqj^ •psqs -3'SiBVp avft 0} K{dsj siq Suiniiuqns TOJ psissnbsj ssq sq qoiqM stusiunoop 3lp \\V JO pSAUdsp SBM jsuoiipsd sqj. •Aimbus piusuiiJBdsp jo psdsa-i ui psiepim ussq s^q uoipE .isqprg ou '(g/j smxsuuv) EOOZ'60'90 P3V3P psqs-sgjBqo jo snssi wys l^qi luspiAS si y -opjsq} pspusddB siuamnoop pire s§uipB3[d sqi pssrusd 'ssiped sqi joj psunoo p3iuBS( presq sABq i •3SBO lU3S9.id 3\ff. UI p3}3(dm00 sq ppOM Aimbua usqM pire psiuiodd^ sq ppoM jsogjo Aimbus usqM o^ se uopBUUojm oa seq aq^Bqi siiiuqns jaqiJig psunoo psuresq •a^tduioo si Xjmbus sqt ((p passspj sq touireo uoisusd aq^ pire uoisusd ]Buo;s;Aojd pred ussq seq jsuoppsd sqjL •^ppjo punoj3 sqi uo psqsenb sq }OUUBO Xjmbus piusmijBdsp yav^ simiqns jsqynj 3H •a^p i(p pa^uioddB ussq ssq Jsogjo Aimbus ou se Ambus piusmpBdsp av^ jo uopepim-uou 01 preSsj q}iM spsj sq} ysAOJiuoo tou ssop 'STOS sill -ioj SuiJBSddE '3}1300ApV 'IAOQ A(ndSQ pSU-IESl IpSAIMQ Afv I-tqS 'WIUOO .13(1 •jsuoppsd sqijo sjij sip m ^ureysoim pire KuoS^ piusui 'iusmssereq o^m p3t(ns3j s^q sSmpssoojd piusmijedsp SupBproi m &e\3p sq} se psqsenb aq &3va issqs-sSreqo }Bip siimqns Mipjnj Bi(BMn(i(v WS 'uoisusd jo iq8u \v33\ siq mog jsuopipd sip pSAudsp puE tusmssBjeq pasn^o ssq ^ssqs-sg.iBqo o: itrensmd sds^s Xire Suiyi m &B\3p aq^ 'snqi 'SOOZ'OI'IE uo uoi^nuirejsdns jo S§13 sip guiureflB uo SOIAJSS uio-ij p3ji}3^ seq Jsuoppsd sqj^ 'ps^iliui ussq SBq Aimbus {BiusmiJBdsp ou siBp ((p pire (g/j smxsuuv) EOOZ'60'90 uo psnssi SBM psqs -agjBqo sqi iBip :orj sip jo •(unoooe uo paqspnb sq ^ava issqs-sgreqo sq: qi s^imqns Muoppsd sip .loj guuBsddB psunoo psu-resi 'Bi]BMnti[v ijqs •(l/j smxsimv) SOOZ'OI'IE uo uopBnmrejsdns jo a3v aqi Suraren^ uo SOIA.ISS mojj psjps.! jsuoppsd av^ 'suiiiiresui sq: u] •gmpusd nps si ss^o sqi ysvff. sresdds 11 pue iaX SB ps^uioddB ussq seq jsogjo ^.imbus ou '^ssqs-sSreqo sq^ 0} iirensmj •Bdmeio jigfaef '53i(ojjo luspuatuusdng pire saipj jo IM3U3Q ropsdsui 'wssv nssAuaq (Lli smxsuuv) SOOZ'SO'80 P31BP S^SSS: 9. 10. The Supreme Court, in the matter of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan where the issue involved was charge-sheet relating to the incident over ten years stale, observed as under: "19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence ofthe matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine ifit is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic prineiple of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particularjob has to perfonn his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. Ifhe deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Nomially, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations." The High Court of Gujrat in the matter of Mohanbhai Dungarbhai Parmar Vs.Y.B. Zala and others while considering the delay, observed that delay by itself constitute denial of reasonable opportunity and amounts to violation ofprinciples ofnaturaljustice. Applying the above well settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, wherein the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate made an observation with regard to conduct of mvestigation in a criminal case. On the basis of the same a memo of charge-sheet dated 06.09.2003 (Annexure P/5), was issued. Thereafter, the respondent authorities have neither supplied relevant documents to the petitioner nor took any action for initiating departmental enquiry. It is implicit in the rule of natural justice that enquiry or prosecution must be commenced and concluded within a reasonable time frame. It is tme that no defmite parameters could be laid 'AIR 1998 SC 1833 21980(1)SLR325 BBSKSSSffigKSESB^flil^gffiBiig^^SilSSBK^SKteSAUksrtSii^&SUBSBBBgBHB down, but in absence of any justification on the part of respondents authorities, the memo of charges, which was issued five years back no departmental enquiry was initiated as yet, the delay factor deprived the petitioner further an opportunity to defend himself. He would be handicapped in recalling as to what had happened at an earlier point of time. The petitioner was not supplied copies of relevant documents. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2005 (AnnexureP/1). 11. Looking from all angles, the inordinate delay in commencing and concluding the departmental enquiry is fatal, thus, the impugned order dated 06.09.2003 (Annexure P/5) is quashed and set aside. It is not necessary to pass any order on order dated 03.09.2001 (Annexure P/3) as the petitioner has not raised the said issue on merit. It is accordingly directed that the pensionery benefits shall be released in accordance with law forthwith. 12. This petition is allowedto the above-extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu