HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.175 OF 2010 S.R. Kashyap Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Post for pronouncement of the order on c2? d'av of March, 2010 Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge 1 HtGH COU RT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITiQN (S) N0.175 OF 2010 S.R. Kashyap Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri R.K. Kesharwani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORDER (Pronounced on this -29 day of March, 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash memo of charges dated 3rd & 4th February, 2005 (Annexure - P/1). 2. The indisputabie facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that when the petitioner was working as Production Range Officer at Forest Range Darbha (P), Forest Division Central Bastar, Jagdalpur, during the period from 21-6-1996 to 14-4-1997. It was alleged that there were certain flnancial irreguiarities, which caused financiai loss to the tune of Rs.3,21,124/- to the Government. Further, the petitioner caused loss on account of unaccounted 508 fire wood stacks. 3. The charge sheet was issued after a period of about 8 years. The show cause notice along with memo of charges was issued on 3 & 4 February, 2005 (Annexure - P/1). On receipt of the show cause along with memo of charges, the petitioner made an ^t .O^C^ //^^\ ^l te.... --..??^g%.. ^ •^sy' 4. application on 14-3-2005 (Annexure - P/2) for suppty of documents other than what were supplied to the petitioner aiong with memo of charges. The documents were not supplied for about 3 years. After 3 years the enquiry officer and the presenting officer were appointed on 13-8-2008 (Annexure - P/3). Thereafter, reminder was sent on 31-10-2008 (Annexure - P/4) by the petitioner for suppiy of documents as per earlier letter dated 14-3-2005. Without supplying the documents, the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry ofRcer on 24-12-2009, as is evident from the ietter dated 14-12-2009 (Annexure - P/7). Thus, this petition for quashing of memo of charges. Shri Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, wouid submit that the charges are vague and the same was issued after a period of about 7-8 years to harass the petitioner. The work was to be performed by the Forester i.e. respondent No.4 herein and if any, irregularity was found the respondent Np.4 was responsible for the same. To buttress his contention learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of IVIadhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Another , Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India & Others and a decision of the Division Bench of this Court 11990(Supp)SCC738 2AIR1986SC2118 r-i^lh. '^ 6. rendered in Central Coalfields Ltd. & Others v. Arun Kumar Shukla3. On the other hand, Shri Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the State, would submit that the petitioner was suppiied a copy ot' the relevant documents during the course of departmental enquiry vide letter dated 18-11-2008 (Annexure - R/1),as is evident from the acknowledgment dated 7-2-2009 (Annexure R/2). Certain documents were again supplied on 11-11-2009. The enquiry could not be compteted, as there were 23 witnesses. The delay in issuing the charge sheet was on account of preliminary enquiry conducted by the State before issue of charge sheet on 3 & 4 February, 2005 (Annexure - P/1). The departmental enquiry is in progress and the same could not be completed at the earliest on account of non- cooperation of the petitioner also. On careful consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, perusal of pleadings and the documents appended thereto, it appears that the list of documents were supplied along with the charge sheet and thereafter some more documents were supplied to the petitioner subsequently. The question asto whether relevant documents were supplied or not can be decided only after enquiry is over. It is well settled principle of iaw that it is not necessary to supply all the documents, which may not be relevant and useful for the purpose of the subjected charges in the enquiry. 2004 (l)CGLJ 184 ^ 7. Reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the circutars dated 11-6-2003, 4-6-1997 and the iatest circular dated 8-10-2009, it appears that the departmental enquiry has to be concluded as eariy as possible preferably within the reasonable time. The explanation ofthe respondents that eartier preiimlnary enquiry was conducted in that process there was a delay of 7-8 years is not very satisfactory, as no documents have been produced by the State in support of its contention. 8. Effect of issuance of charge sheet belatedly came up for consideration on many occasions before the Supreme Court as well as before this Court where it has been found that if there is undue delay without satisfactory explanation that itseif constitute denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of principies of natural justice. 9. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan , the Supreme Court observed as under: "19. It is not possible to tay down any predetermined principles applicable to ait cases and in ali sttuatsons where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each csse has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take info consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminafe after delay parficularty when the delay is abnormal and there is no (1998)48cci54 -'••^•g^llS" explanation for the delay. The ctelinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undsrgo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part 'm delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiafed the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consi'der the nafure of charge, its complexity ancS on what account the ctelay has occuired. If the delay is unsxplained prejudice to the delinquent employee ;s writ large on the face of it. It could a/so be seen as to haw much the cSisciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against Sts employee. It js the basic principle of administrat'ive justice fhat an officer entrusted wifh a particular Job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in sGcordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats Justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged ofncer unless 'it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when fhere is proper expianation for the delay in conducting the clisciplinary proceedings. Uttimately, the couft is to balance fhese two diverse considerations." 10. In Bani Singh (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under "4. The appeat against the order dated December 16, 1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and shouid have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to sgree with this contention of the leamed counsel. The irregularities which were the subject mattsr of the enquiry is said to have taken plaoe befween the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they ,^T~'11«. ^-ek "^ ••:''c, "'Va.yws %. .<.. JJ ^•^^^ ''fis». 'vr\..^' '•%"':--f/^gt;hy''' were not aware of the said irregularities, ifany, and came to know it only in 1987. AGCording fo them even in Aprtl 1977 there was doubt abouf the involvement of the officer in the said iiregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to inifiate the disciplinary proceedings as steted by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are aiso of fhe view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingty we dismiss this appeal." 11. This Court has an occasion to deal with this issue in S.K. Tigga v. State of C.G. & Others . The facts were entirely different in S.K. Tigga (supra), as the charge sheet was issued on 6-9-2003 and no enquiry could be initiated. Thereafter no documents were supplied on his request till the petitioner therein retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-10-2005. Thus, this Court took a view that after retirement since the enquiry was not conciuded during his sen/ice time, the delayed charge sheet was quashed. 12. In the present case, the petitioner is still in service. After issue of charge sheet on 3 & 4 February, 2005 the petitioner has not approached this Court immediately for quashing of the charge sheet on account of detay in initiating enquiry on the part of the respondent authorities. If the respondent authorities on account of so called preliminary enquiry has taken about 7-8 years, the 2008 (3) CGLJ 267 ^.•^s^^^ ,^yy\ /'' B..._,. ^ 1 ^y^ '•^SiBT^^'" '^ y ^' petitioner himself has taken 5 years thereafter in approaching this Court. The petitioner waited for appointment of enquiry and presenting officers. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry proceedings and there is an allegation that the delay in conclusion of the enquiry was on account of non- cooperation of the petitioner and further having regard to the number of witnesses to be examined, the enquiry could not be conciuded at the eariiest. 13. The Supreme Court in Bani Singh (supra), which was decided in April, 1990 dismissed the appeal on the ground that the State Administrative Tribunal also dismissed the application on account of more than 12 years delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. 14. In 1998, the Supreme Court in N. Radhakishan (supra) has further explained that it is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in conctuding the disciplinary proceedings. It was clearly observed that it depends on the facts and circumstances in each case. Atl the relevant factors have to be examined to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration. The Court has to maintain batance between the clean administration and prejudice to the delinquent emptoyee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. 15. The law is weli settled by a series of decisions that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice, as the show cause notice or charge sheet does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. (See Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh , Special Director v. Mohd. Gulam Ghouse , Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore , State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana . 16. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, without going into the merits of the case, as the same may prejudice the departmental enquiry, this Court is of the considered opinion that the delay has been caused by the petitioner also. The petitioner has not approached this Court immediately after issue of charge sheet, but after a period of 5 years from the date of issue of charge sheet. In the case on hand, serious charges of financial irregularitiss are involved. 17. The petitioner's interest is not prejudiced. A detailed charge sheet along with documents have been supptied to him. Clean and efficient administration require that the employees should work within the rules and in the public interest. This Court is of 6 (1996)1 SCC327 ' (2004)33cc 440 8 (2001) 10 SCC 639 9 (1987)23cc 179 10 (2006)12 SCC 28 Gowri 18. •\ the opinion that in the interest of clean and efficient administration enquiry even after delay must continue. Whether the petitioner or respondent No.4 is responsible cannot be decided by this Court. This is to be determined onty in the departmental enquiry. Thus, the respondent authorities are directed to conclude the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner as early as possible preferable within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. order asto costs. Sd/- SATISH K. AGNMOTRI Judge