1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5273/2001. : : Mahesh Prasad Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 18.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Ms.Naina Saraf for the petitioner. Mr.Hemant Gupta, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition seeks to challenge the charge- sheet issued upon the petitioner on 6.5.1997. Ms.Naina Saraf, leanred counsel for the petitioner argued that this charge-sheet could not be issued because original charge-sheet was issued on 27.6.1985 on the same charges was cancelled by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojana, Bikaner by order dated 23.9.1996. No reason was given for the issuance of charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in regard to incident of the year 1982, charge-sheet could not be issued so belatedly. The petitioner also originally challenged the circular the circular of Department of Personnel dated 13.7.2001, which provides that in the case 2 of charge-sheet of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds Officers shall not be given such field postings or other postings. The learned counsel did not press challenge to the aforesaid circular on the ground that validity of the same has been upheld by this Court in another writ petition. Shri Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents argued that question of delay had not to be examined because the charge-sheet was originally issued to the petitioner on 27.6.1985 and due to the technical reason since it was not issued by competent authority, the Chief Engineer directed for cancellation of the same, but in the year 1997 the action was initiated for issuance of fresh charge-sheet by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that this Court while issuing notice to the respondents vide order dated 5.11.2001 stayed the operation of that transfer order of the petitioner dated 20.9.2001, but there was no stay in the enquiry proceedings. A perusal of the order dated 23.3.1993 would make it appear that earlier charge-sheet was cancelled and the endorsement No.2 made to Superintendent Engineer concerned indicates that action was being taken for issuance of fresh charge-sheet to the petitioner. On the face of it, it 3 cannot be accepted that respondents unconditionally withdrew the charge-sheet. So far as the delay is concerned, the original charge-sheet was issued on 27.6.1985 and the matter remained pending and the fresh charge-sheet was issued in continuity with the order of withdrawal on 6.5.1997. Even otherwise, neither of the counsel representing the parties is in a position to inform as to the stage of the enquiry proceedings. Although the enquiry proceedings in all probabilities might have been concluded. And if not concluded, the respondents are hereby directed to conclude the enquiry proceedings and pass a final order within six months. If eventually any order of penalty is passed the petitioner would be at liberty to seek remedy thereagainst as may be available to him in accordance with law. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.14.