THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.28669 OF 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the first respondent in not closing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct the respondents to close the proceedings forthwith in the light of the enquiry report, dated 16.08.2006, and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Higher Grade Assistant. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant in the respondents Corporation on 17.08.1990 and since then he has been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors, without any adverse remarks. According to him, on 20.09.2005, when he went out of the cash counter, for a short period to attend a nature call, and after coming back and opening the lock of the cash counter, he found no change there. Then, the first respondent issued notice, dated 20.09.2005, calling upon him to submit his explanation on the ground that he failed to lock the door of the cash counter properly. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated 17.10.2005, denying the allegations made against him. The first respondent issued a charge sheet, dated 10.04.2006, against the petitioner stating that on 29.07.2005 while he was working as Cashier in the Branch Office, Hanamkonda, the suitcase, containing cash of Rs.9,19,977=40 and cheques worth Rs.6,03,286=30 kept in his cabin, was found missing. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.05.2006, once again denying the allegations levelled against him in the charge sheet. In this regard, the first respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer to conduct a domestic enquiry against him. The Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed domestic enquiry on 06.07.2006, 13.07.2006 and finally on 18.07.2006 and after considering the material on record, submitted his report, dated 16.08.2006, to the first respondent holding that the petitioner was found not guilty of the charges contained in the charge sheet, dated 10.04.2006. The first respondent, having received the enquiry report, has not taken any further action, even after lapse of more than five years. The petitioner had submitted several representations to the first respondent to exonerate for the charges levelled against him and to promote him on par with his juniors. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in the enquiry report, he found not guilty of the charges contained in the charge sheet, dated 10.04.2006, the first respondent is not taking any action to close the disciplinary proceedings against him. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Respondents filed counter affidavit stating that when the suitcase containing the previous day’s collection, with heavy cash and cheques and the same was kept in the petitioner’s cabin, the responsibility lies on the petitioner for the safe custody of that suitcase, but it was found missing. Therefore, the first respondent issued notice, dated 20.09.2005, to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.10.2005. Since the respondent authorities were not satisfied with the said explanation, they issued charge sheet, dated 10.04.2006, framing charges against the petitioner. It is further stated that though domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report, dated 16.08.2006, stating that the petitioner was found not guilty of the charges levelled against him, the matter was kept under abeyance, as the same is still pending before the Oriental Insurance Company, Hanamkonda Branch, for settlement of cash in transit claim, and further proceedings are subject to the outcome of the settlement of the claim. It is also stated that with regards to promotion, the petitioner was called for interview to the post of Higher Grade Assistant, but his name did not find in the ranking list. Hence, the respondents prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for Life Insurance Corporation appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. The short point that falls for consideration is whether the disciplinary authority kept the enquiry pending without taking any further action for more than five years? 6. In pursuance of the charges levelled against the petitioner, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted his report, dated 16.08.2006, wherein a categorical finding has been recorded that the charge sheeted employee was found not guilty of the charges contained in the charge sheet, dated 10.04.2006. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has called for the explanation by giving a notice to the petitioner, dated 22.09.2006. Even in the notice, the disciplinary authority has not disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer so as to take further action. Therefore, when the enquiry officer found the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him, the disciplinary authority ought to have exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings. Such a step has not been taken for the last five years. Therefore, the action of the respondents, in not passing any orders on the enquiry report for such a long period, has been deprecated. The matters of this nature cannot be kept pending indefinitely. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the enquiry report, dated 16.08.2006, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 22.06.2011 KH THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.28669 OF 2010 Dated:22.06.2011 Between: K.Vaddi Raj .. Petitioner And The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Balasamudram, Hanamkonda and another .. Respondents