--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 1970 / 2007 BRIJLAL SHARMA S/O LAKHIRAM SHARMA Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, STATE OF MP & FOUR OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 19/9/2011) The petitioner before this Court, a retired Government Servant aged about 72 years, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the Departmental Enquiry pending against him. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Overseer on 24/8/59 and was promoted to the post of Asstt. Engineer in the year 1980. Petitioner has further stated that he has attained the age of superannuation on 30/6/97. Petitioner has further stated that in the year 1986 he was posted at Karariya Dam and he was there upto 29/8/80. Petitioner has further stated that in the year 1992 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging certain misconduct and the petitioner promptly submitted a reply to the charge sheet in the year 1992 itself. Petitioner has further stated that the enquiry officer was not appointed by the State Government and the petitioner was permitted to retire on 30/6/97 and finally an enquiry officer was appointed on 24/1/05. Petitioner has further stated that --- 2 --- inspite of the appointment of enquiry officer in the year 2005, the enquiry officer has not concluded the Departmental Enquiry and the petitioner who is a pensioner is receiving anticipatory pension only. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet as contained in (Annexure P/1) dt. 30/4/92 and has also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant other consequential relief to the petitioner meaning thereby regular pension, terminal dues and arrears of pension as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the court room itself. This court on the last date of hearing has passed the following order : WP No.1970/2007 27-08-2011 Mr M.K. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the respondent State Petitioner before this court, who is aged about 78 years is aggrieved by the departmental enquiry, pending against him. 02. Notices were issued on 02-05-2007 and inspite of repeated opportunities, no reply has been filed. On 03-03-2011, last opportunity was granted to the State Government to file reply. However no reply has been filed and no reasons have been assigned for not filing the reply. 03. This court in number of --- 3 --- cases is directing the personal appearance of the Officer-Incharge of the cases and is facing a practical difficulty to decide the matters as replies are not being filed. 04. In the present matter inspite of last opportunity, no reply has been filed. The State is granted time to show cause as to why exemplary costs may not be awarded in the matter. The O.I.C. is also directed to remain present on the next date of hearing. It is further made clear that in case no reply is filed before the next date of eharing, this court shall be deciding the matter finally on the next date of hearing.List on 19th September, 2011. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is aged about 72 years and the writ petition is of the year 2007, it was observed that in case no reply is filed on the next date of hearing, this court shall be deciding the matter in absence of reply. The State Government has not cared to file a reply in the matter nor there is any explanation offered today for not filing the reply. Resultantly, this court is left with no other choice except to decide the matter in absence of reply. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the --- 4 --- petitioner is a retired Government Servant and has attained the age of superannuation in the year 1997. The disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge sheet of the year 1992 have not been finalised till 2007. Thereafter petitioner has approached this court and for the reasons best known to the respondents, no reply has been filed in the present case inspite of repeated opportunities. This court in the case of J. N. Sharma Vs. State of M.P. (WP No. 5107 / 2005) has quashed the Departmental Enquiry on the ground of delay and latches. The apex court in the case of State of MP Vs. Bani Singh 1990 Supp. (1) SCC 738 has also upheld the order passed by the Tribunal quashing the Departmental Enquiry on the ground of delay and latches. The apex Court in the case of P V Mahadevan Vs. MD Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2005 (7) JT 517) has again quashed the charge sheet on account of non furnishing of plausible explanation to issue belated charge sheet. In the present case also the charge sheet was a belated charge sheet and the department has not taken any step to conclude the Departmental Enquiry while the Government --- 5 --- servant was in service. Not only this, after 1997 till 2007 no steps were taken by the respondents to conclude the Departmental Enquiry and therefore the charge sheet which is pending against the petitioners since 1992 deserves to be quashed on the ground of delay and latches in concluiding the departmental enquiry. Resultantly the writ petition is allowed. The charge sheet dt. 30/4/92 is accordingly quashed. Respondents are directed to release all the terminal dues and to grant regular pension as well as arrears of pension to the petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid this petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR