IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 9092/2008 Reserved on:1.9.2009 Decided on:11.9.2009 ________________________________________________ Dina Nath Chandel. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajindger Dogra, Addl. A.G. ________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge . The petitioner was promoted as Block Primary Education Officer on 6.6.1995. He was put under suspension vide office order dated 22.8.1997. A charge-sheet was issued against him on 20.12.1997. He filed the reply to the same on 2.1.1998. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority on 12.1.1999. The Disciplinary Authority for the reasons best known to it did not take any action after the receipt of the report. The petitioner made 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 representations for early conclusion of the departmental proceedings on 29.7.2000, 4.9.2000 and 4.2.2001. The Secretary, Education has directed the petitioner to appear before him vide order dated 25.5.2001. He was directed to appear on 29.5.2001. He made himself available before the Competent Authority on 31.5.2001. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that though the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 20.12.1997, however, till date the same have not been concluded by the respondents. He then contended that his client has retired on 31.1.1998. He lastly contended that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of the departmental proceedings and the same are required to be quashed and set aside. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that it is true that the petitioner has retired on 3.11.1998, however, the case was forwarded to the competent authority to take action against the petitioner as envisaged under rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. The departmental proceedings stood initiated against the petitioner on 20.12.1997. The Inquiry officer has submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority on 12.1.1999. In the meantime, the petitioner stood retired on 31.1.1998. The Disciplinary Authority sat over the matter after the receipt of the inquiry report. The action is required to be taken after the receipt of the inquiry report as per the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 3 1965. It is not discernible why the petitioner had been directed to appear before the Secretary, Education vide order dated 25.5.2001. The action, if any, was required to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority. The Secretary, Education is the Appellate Authority. He could not pre-empt or scuttle any action, which was supposed to be taken by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner was also put under suspension on 22.8.1997. The retiral benefits have been withheld by the respondents from due date i.e. 31.1.1998. The petitioner has suffered agony with effect from 20.12.1997. There is no explanation whatsoever in the reply for delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority had to examine the report and thereafter to take action in accordance with law. The petitioner has neither tried to obstruct nor delayed the inquiry proceedings. The State has not explained why the delay has occurred. The reply filed by the State is sketchy. It is the right of the employee that the proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo agony and monetary loss. The Court is of the opinion that the respondents have unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings without any fault on the part of the petitioner in delaying the proceedings. The very fact that the delay has remained unexplained, the petitioner has been prejudiced. The Disciplinary Authority was not serious in pursuing the matter against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has to discharge its duties efficiently. It is settled law that the delay defeats justice. It is not one of the cases where the delay can be attributed to the petitioner. The Court has to strike a balance by protecting the rights of employee vis-à-vis employer. 4 The inquiry report stood submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority way back in the year 1999. No action thereafter has been taken except that an averment has been made in the reply that the penalty of deduction from the pension of the petitioner was to be made under rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the matter had been referred to the competent authority. What action has been taken thereafter has not been placed on record though the reply was filed by the petitioner in the year 2002. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 20.12.1997 are quashed and set aside. The suspension order of the petitioner issued on 22.8.1997 stands revoked. The respondents are directed to release the retiral benefits to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. This amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. 11.9. 2009. *awasthi*