CWP 5024/2K //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5024/2000 R.C.Dharmani Versus State Date of Order ::: 31/03/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. RC Joshi ) Ms Namita Parihar ) for petitioner Mr. Sumit Vishnoi for Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG for respondent State Petitioner who is presently member of Rajasthan Administrative Service, was served with charge sheet U/r 16 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (“CCA Rules”) on 31/08/98 and after eight years of its pendency, inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 22/06/05 but has not been finally concluded as yet. Petitioner has basically challenged inquiry proceedings on various grounds including the fact that for an incident of 1987-88, after almost ten years whereof, respondents served charge sheet upon petitioner in the year 1998 which itself, is sufficient to quash inquiry proceedings initiated against him. That apart, Counsel further submits that despite full co- operation, inquiry officer took atleast eights years in submitting his report, which itself is pending consideration for last almost three years still no orders were passed by disciplinary CWP 5024/2K //2// authority so far, which according to Counsel has caused great prejudice to the petitioner. Counsel for respondents submits that delay has caused because of petitioner's non-co- operation. However, this fact has not been disputed that inquiry officer submitted his report to disciplinary authority on 22/06/05. I have considered submissions of both the parties and with their assistance examined material on record. Delay as a matter of course is not sufficient to quash inquiry proceedings and each case has to be examined on its own merits looking to the nature of allegation and material brought forwards by parties in course of inquiry proceedings. This Court is of the opinion that delay has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner as regards the incident of 1987-88 for which charge sheet has been served upon petitioner. However, this Court finds substance in submission of Counsel for petitioner that even after inquiry report has been submitted way back on 22/06/05, disciplinary authority has failed to pass final orders on the inquiry report in accordance with law, which has certainly caused prejudice. It is relevant to mention that after this CWP 5024/2K //3// fact was brought to the notice of this Court that after submission of inquiry report, final order has not been passed by disciplinary authority so far, Counsel for respondent was directed vide order dt.25/09/07 to seek instructions and when matter came up after almost six months, Govt. Counsel was not able to point out as to how much more time will be required to take final decision on inquiry report; as such further time was granted vide order dt.17/03/08. Today, letter dt. 31/03/08 has been produced before this Court with the request to grant further six months time for taking decision. It is always expected to conclude the inquiry within reasonable time. It appears that disciplinary authority has no time to consider inquiry report and to take final decision – pendencey thereof has caused prejudice to the petitioner. However, in the facts of the case, this Court considers it proper to direct disciplinary authority to take final decision on the inquiry report dt.22/06/05 within two months from today. With the directions (supra), writ petition stands disposed of alongwith stay petition. A copy of this order be sent to the respondent for compliance. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/5024CWP00DE3103.doc