SBCWP3835/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3835/2010 Lal Bahadur Rai Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Others Date of Order ::: 29.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Kamal Kant Sharma, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging order dated 15.03.2007 thereby imposing on him penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect and subsequent order dated 14.07.2008 by which his appeal was partly allowed and that penalty was reduced to censure. Petitioner has also prayed that charge-sheets dated 18.01.2005 and 03.02.2005, be quashed on the ground of delay and laches. In so far as contention of petitioner that he was not supplied documents despite demand and therefore penalty order dated 15.03.2007 read with order dated 14.07.2008 be quashed and set aside is concerned, this SBCWP3835/2010 // 2 // contention cannot be accepted because in the first place petitioner was proceeded against with minor penalty in enquiry proceedings under Regulation No.6 of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employees (Classification Control & Appeal) Regulations, 1962. A reading of impugned order dated 15.03.2007 reveals that respondents afforded number of opportunities to petitioner to file reply to memo and lastly when time was extended on two occasions he was specifically told that if he did not file reply, disciplinary authority shall be constrained to pass final order. Such warning was given to him on 13.12.2005, 21.02.2006 and 20.06.2006. Still he failed to submit his defence reply. Lastly, a final notice dated 07.12.2006 was given to him and only thereafter impugned order of penalty was passed. Penalty of stoppage of one grade increment has already been reduced to that of censure. No interference is called for in that penalty. In regard to charge-sheets dated 18.01.2005 and 03.02.2005 are concerned, grievance of petitioner may be justified because respondents have not expedited the proceedings in that charge-sheets, which SBCWP3835/2010 // 3 // eventually may effect his future prospects in the matter of promotion. The writ petition to that extent is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make a representation to disciplinary authority, which shall ensure early completion of disciplinary proceedings in those matters. If enquiry proceedings are not concluded within a period of one year from the date of receipt of such representation, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this court again. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//