1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6662 OF 2009 Subhash Namdeo Shinde ..Petitioner V/s. Divisional Bureau (Revenue) & ors ..Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6663 OF 2009 Rameshwar Limbraj Junvankar ..Petitioner V/s. Divisional Bureau (Revenue) & ors ..Respondents Mr.G.N.Salunkhe, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Vinay Masurkar, Government Pleader and Mr.V.P.Malvankar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr.Dilip Band, Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune & Mr.Nitin Gosavi, Deputy Commissioner (EGS), Pune Division, Pune present CORAM : S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . The above Writ Petitions raise a common question and hence are being dealt with together 2 and disposed of. The petitioners in the above Writ Petitions are working as Agricultural Assistants in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officer at and post Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.6662 of 2009 has been issued Chargesheet dated 14th August, 2006 and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6663 of 2006 has been issued Chargesheet dated 11th September, 2006. The allegations against the petitioners are in respect of certain acts committed by them whilst carrying out works in land Survey Nos.1/1, 1/3 and ½ and Gat No.6 respectively. The discrepancies in both the works are mentioned in the table reproduced in the said Chargesheet. It would be pertinent to note that though the Chargesheet has been issued on 14th August, 2006 and 11th September, 2006, nothing has been done in furtherence thereof till date. 2. The petitioners in the meantime, have applied for voluntary retirement which applications 3 the respondents have refused to consider in view of the fact that the Departmental Proceedings are initiated against the petitioners. It would be pertinent to note that in respect of both the petitioners there is a letter issued by the Circle Inspector, Barshi, inter alia stating that the petitioners were not concerned with the works which are mentioned in the said Chargesheet. In the light of the aforesaid facts we had directed the learned Government Pleader to take instructions in the matter as we were disturbed by the fact that inspite of three years having been elapsed, no progress was made in respect of the Departmental proceedings. 3. On behalf of the State Government an Affidavit has now been filed by Mr.Nitin Gosavi, Deputy Commissioner (EGS), Pune Division, Pune, in which it has been stated that in respect of the work under the Employment Guarantee Scheme in question, various irregularities were noticed and 4 the said irregularities have assumed the proportion of a scam. The learned Government Pleader on instructions from the concerned Revenue Commissioner stated that the involvement is of about 147 persons from the various Departments of the Government, who were concerned with the said EGS work. Out of the 147 persons, 17 persons have already been suspended and further enquiry is going on in respect of the said Scam and therefore, the State Government would require some time to take a decision as regards the Departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners abovenamed. It is required to be noted that a separate Chargesheet is issued to each of the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader has also fairly conceded that a composite Chargesheet has not been issued against the delinquents concerned with the said alleged Scam. 3. Since the departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioners above named since 5 the year 2006 and since the petitioners are also nearing the age of superannuation. In our view interest of justice would be served, if the following directions are passed whilst disposing of the above Writ Petitions. (i) The respondents are granted a period of nine months to complete the enquiry against the petitioners which has been initiated pursuant to the Chargesheets dated 14th August, 2006 and 11th September, 2006. (ii) The respondents within the aforesaid period of nine months would be obliged to pass a final Order in respect of the said Departmental proceedings. (iii) In the event the enquiry is not completed within the time stipulated in this Order, the petitioners would be entitled for consideration of their applications for voluntary retirement and the respondents in that event would be obliged to dispose of the said applications in accordance with law. (iv) If the enquiry is not completed in the time stipulated as above and for some reasons the enquiry is completed beyond the date of superannuation of the petitioners, the petitioners would be entitled to their retiral benefits and pendency of the Departmental proceedings would not be a ground for the respondents to deny the petitioners the said retiral benefits. (v) Mr.G.N.Salunkhe, the learned counsel for the petitioners assures the Court that the petitioners would co-operate in the Departmental proceedings as and when they are commenced by the 6 respondents. (vi) Since the Chargesheet against both the petitioners is identical, looking to the nature of charges alleged against them, the respondents may consider the examination of the witnesses at one time and complete the recording of evidence expeditiously. (vii) With the aforesaid directions, the above Writ Petitions are disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J.) ( S.B.MHASE, J. )