IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14965 of 2010 AMARENDRA KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE AMBIKA PRASAD SINGH, IPS, EX-COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-14, PATNA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-SALIMPUR AHARA, BEHIND RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA BIHAR………………………………………………………….PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME (POLICE), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. SRI S.P.KESHAV, COMMISSIONER FOR DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY, OLD SECRETARY (HUTMENT) BIHAR, PATNA……..RESPONDENTS. ----------- FOR PETITIONER:- MR. RAVINDRA KUMAR, ADV FOR UNION OF INDIA:- MR. NADEEM SERAJ, CGC FOR THE STATE:- MR.AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, GA-9 MR. ARUN KUMAR PRASAD, AC TO GA-9 ----------- 04/ 03-Nov-2010 Heard the parties. 2. The writ petition has been preferred against final judgment and order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 3rd March 2010 whereby O.A. No.234 of 2008 has been dismissed. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the charges relate to unauthorized absence between the period 3rd December 1992 to 30th April 1995 and therefore initiation of proceeding finally by issuance of charge memo on 22.05.2006 ought to have 2 been interfered with and quashed by the learned Tribunal on account of inordinate delay causing prejudice to the petitioner. 4. In reply to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State has pointed out from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit that a show-cause was asked from the petitioner in the year 2000 asking him whether the petitioner admitted the charges or not so that order for initiating a proceeding could be formally issued in the light of petitioner’s reply but petitioner preferred a writ petition in the year 2000 and by his letters asked the authorities to wait for the outcome. It was further pointed out that the learned Tribunal has considered all the relevant case laws as well as the facts and has come to a proper conclusion that the delay in initiating the proceeding was on account of dilatory tactics adopted by the petitioner himself. 5. It appears that the disciplinary proceeding initiated in the year 2006 which was challenged in the year 2008 has already progressed considerably and the matter is pending for final decision before the 3 authorities of the Union of India who has to act as per concurrence of Public Service Commission. 6. After considering all the relevant facts and the case laws which find mention in the judgment of the Tribunal under challenge, we are not persuaded to interfere with the disciplinary proceeding. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 7. Since considerable delay has already been caused, it is expected that the authorities shall conclude the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law at an early date preferably within six months. Sk/perwez (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)