* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 843/2008 & CM Nos. 1636/2008, 7292/2008 and 7294/2008 R.P.SINGH ..... Petitioner Through Counsel versus THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR NPCC LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Adv. for respondent no.1 Mr. Dalip Mehra, Adv. for respondent no.3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 16.05.2008 1. The petitioner herein is facing departmental enquiry. Mr. Inder Singh is the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he was transferred from the corporate office at Faridabad to Buxar unit at Bihar vide office order dated 16.4.2007 but he did not join the place of posting even after being relieved on 30th April, 2007. There is also a charge that the petitioner had made repeated attempts to bring outside influence upon the Management in respect of his service and cancellation of the transfer. It may be also noted that the said transfer order has been temporarily kept in abeyance vide order dated 1.11.2007, but with a stipulation that alleged unauthorized absence of the petitioner and other officers mentioned therein from the date they were relieved till the date they actually report for duty, shall be examined on the officers submitting leave applications. It has been further clarified by the respondent no.1 in the counter affidavit that the said order was passed without prejudice to the departmental enquiry which had already been initiated. In the counter affidavit it has also been pointed out that the petitioner had continuously worked at the corporate office for a long period of 18 years at a stretch. It is alleged by respondent no.1 that the transfer in question was in terms of the transfer policy. 2. The Enquiry Officer appointed in the present case is a retired officer of the rank of Deputy Secretary who was working in the Central Vigilance Commission. The explanation given by the respondent no.1 in the counter affidavit is that he is an independent person having no bias. He is fully conversant with the procedure and therefore competent and was rightly appointed as the Enquiry Officer. It is also stated that petitioner does not have any right to pick and choose a Enquiry Officer of his liking. It is stated that internal officers are not well conversant with the procedure. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is deliberately trying to delay the enquiry proceedings on one pretext or the other. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner deliberately appointed one Mr. A K Mishra DGM (M) working as Zonal Manager in the State of Manipur to act as his defence representative. 3. Courts are normally reluctant to interfere with the enquiry proceedings, unless clear and definite allegations are made and accepted. Once an Enquiry Officer submits his report, the Disciplinary Authority, examines the same and thereafter, appropriate orders are passed. The Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the view and findings given by the Enquiry Officer. The findings and order passed by the Disciplinary Authority can be made subject matter of appeal and thereafter judicial review before a Court or Tribunal. I do not think it will be appropriate for this court to disturb the enquiry proceedings, which must continue and proceed in accordance with law. Enquiry proceedings should be concluded expeditiously. 4. During the course of hearing today learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has agreed that the order dated 17.1.2008 by which the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte can be set aside subject to the condition that the petitioner should appear before the Enquiry Officer on the date and time fixed by the court for further proceeding. It is stated that the petitioner can be permitted to conduct cross examination of witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that offer given by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is acceptable. I may note here that in the order dated 17.1.2008 it mentioned that notice by registered post (speed post) was sent to the petitioner for the hearing fixed on 17 and 18 January, 2008 but the said notice was received back with remark by the postal department – refused to receive – returned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the remark made by the postal department is incorrect. I need not go into this controversy in view of the statements made by the counsel for the parties that the petitioner is ready and willing to join departmental proceedings and cross examine the witnesses and also submit his statement along with the documents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had made a request for supply of copy of the documents relied upon by the respondent company. Learned counsel for the respondents states that inspection was allowed and documents have been furnished. The petitioner is given liberty to file details of documents of which he requires copies and he is also at liberty to move an application for inspection of specified documents. The aforesaid list/application will be submitted within 2 weeks as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner will appear before the Enquiry Officer on 2nd June, 2008 at 3 p.m. when further proceedings will be held. On the said date the Enquiry Officer will examine the request of the petitioner for supply of relevant documents, pass appropriate order(s) thereon and within one week thereafter the petitioner will be supplied documents as per the order passed by the Enquiry Officer. Inspection, if required, will also be given. The case will be fixed for cross examination of witnesses on the date and time fixed to be by the Enquiry Officer on 2nd June, 2008. The petitioner is also given liberty to appoint Defence Assistant in accordance with the rules and as per law. The petitioner will within a week from today give his correspondence address for receipt of letters/notices. With the aforesaid observations writ petition is disposed of. Dasti. SANJIV KHANNA,J MAY 16, 2008 vld