IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6370 of 2011 Amitabh Singh S/o Sri Braj Kishore Singh, resident of village- Karja, P.S. Karja,, District Muzaffarpur (Bihar) at present posted as Deputy Commandant, Group Centre, CRPF, Jharodakalan, New Delhi-11072. --- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Directorate General, CRPF Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 2. The Director General CRPF, Block No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. I.G.P., CRPF, Bihar Sector- Patna. 4. D.I.G.P. GC, CRPF Muzaffarpur, Bihar 5. D.I.G.P. CRPF RAF, New Delhi. 6. D.I.G. (CR and Vigilance) in the office of Director General, CRPF, Complex No.1, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003. --- Respondents. ---------------------------------- 04 23.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Union of India. Petitioner, while serving the respondent as Deputy Commandant of the Central Reserve Police Force ( for short ‘CRPF’) was placed under suspension by an order dated 16.09.2009 (Annexure-1) invoking jurisdiction as contained in Section 10(1) of the Central Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965. Immediately thereafter the respondents framed article of charge(s) which was/were served on him in October, 2009. By order dated 06.01.2010 (Annexure-6), the respondents reviewed and extended the period of suspension w.e.f. 21.12.2009. By another order dated 15.04.2010 (Annexure-7), the period of suspension was extended by 180 days w.e.f. 21.03.2010. By yet another order dated 20.09.2010 (Annexure-10), the respondents reviewed and decided to extend the period of suspension by another 180 days effective from 2 17.09.2010. Before expiry of the said period the respondents again came out with an order dated 15.03.2011 (Annexure-10/1) whereby the period of suspension was again extended by 180 days w.e.f. 16.03.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in support of the application submits that the petitioner by now continued to be under suspension for close to 02 years. The respondents had to extend the period(s) of suspension by issuing as many as 04 orders. It is also contended that during this interregnum period as many as 03 enquiry officers have been changed. It is submitted that the article of charge (s) has/have already framed and served and the petitioner has filed his reply thereto. In the fitness of things, this Court may direct the respondents to conclude the pending departmental proceeding against him within a reasonable period of time. Learned Assistant Solicitor General, on going through the pleadings made in the writ petition and the stand taken by the petitioner, states that conclusion of departmental proceeding at the earliest is in the interest of both the delinquent and the employer. Learned counsel, therefore, takes a stand and in my view fairly that this Court may direct the respondents to conclude the pending departmental proceeding against the petitioner within a reasonable period of time provided the petitioner fully cooperate in the proceeding. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the delinquent ( petitioner) shall fully cooperate in early conclusion of the proceeding. 3 Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this much is evident that the suspension of the petitioner has protracted close to 02 years. Allowing an employee to be under suspension for an indefinite period of time is neither in the interest of delinquent nor in the interest of the employer. This Court is, thus, satisfied that the present application be disposed of by the following order:- Let the disciplinary authority respondent no.2 ( Director General, CRPF, Block No.1, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi) take all appropriate steps and ensure disposal of the pending departmental proceeding against the petitioner as quickly as possible preferably within a period of 05 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the said respondent, failing which the order of suspension dated 16.09.2009 (Annexure-1) and/or any subsequent order extending the period of suspension of the petitioner would be not given effect to and the petitioner shall be reinstated in active service. The aforesaid outer limit has been fixed by this Court taking into account the stand taken by the petitioner that he would fully cooperate with the authorities in quick disposal thereof. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)