IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 9679 of 2011-H. Decided on: November 16, 2011. Ravinder Kumar. Versus State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “(a) The charge sheet dated 02-05-2009 (Annexure P-5) issued by the Respondent no. 3 and the proceedings thereunder may be quashed and set aside qua the Petitioner in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this case, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the case. It is a case where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as early as in 2007. The original charge sheet was withdrawn and in the meanwhile, another charge sheet was issued on 2.5.2009. Even now, the proceedings have not attained finality. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has also sought for voluntary retirement. However, in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, no decision is taken on the said proceedings. 3. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be met in case a direction is issued for time bound conclusion of the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner, since the same is pending for the last more than four years. Therefore, there will a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to conclude the entire disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from today. The petitioner shall cooperate with the disposal, as above. In case the 2 petitioner requests for any adjournment, the time taken on account of such adjournment shall be excluded in computing the said period of three months. It is also made clear that in case the proceedings are not concluded as above, the officers responsible for causing the delay shall be personally liable for the consequences including the liability for appropriate cost apart from disciplinary action. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application (s), if any. 5. Authenticated copy to the petitioner to be produced before the Disciplinary Authority. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. November 16, 2011. ( Justice Rajiv Sharma), (karan/vs) Judge.