CWP NO.9804 OF 1987 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 03.11.2008 Hari Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate and Mr.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.S.Sahu, AAG, Punjab for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector C/H vide order dated 12.7.1954. On the basis of an FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 29.8.1964 by the Phagwara Police under Sections 448, 353 and 506 of the IPC. Consequent upon his arrest, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.8.64 vide order dated 1.2.65. Thereafter on being acquitted by the court, he was reinstated in service vide order dated 18.12.65. The petitioner was served a charge-sheet dated 19.2.1966 wherein as many as five charges were served upon him. A reply to the charge-sheet was sent by the petitioner. The authority being not CWP NO.9804 OF 1987 :2: satisfied with the reply, ordered holding of a regular departmental enquiry by appointing an Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 21.7.1977. The Enquiry Officer found three charges proved against the petitioner whereas the petitioner was exonerated from other two charges. On consideration of the enquiry report, the competent authority issued a show-cause notice dated 10/12-12-71 seeking explanation from the petitioner on the proposed action of dismissal. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 11.2.72. Thereafter, the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service came to be passed on 17.9.1986 i.e. after about 14 years from the date of receipt of the reply to the show-cause notice. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. The primary ground on which the impugned order has been challenged is inordinate delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Though initially, no reply was filed in this present writ petition, however, it was only on 20.10.2008 that a copy of the reply prepared way back on 19.12.1991 was placed on record. The main contention raised in the reply is with regard to enquiry held by the respondent- State. However, from the reply, it appears that there was no valid reason for not concluding the disciplinary proceedings for a period of more than 14 years, particularly when the enquiry was completed and show-cause notice was issued and reply thereto was also solicited and received in the year 1972. As a matter of fact, there is no explanation CWP NO.9804 OF 1987 :3: from 1972 to 1986. At least the delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner. The issue is no more res integra having been settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, 1998 (4) SCC 154 wherein it has been observed as under:- “It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all case and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay was occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the fact of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, CWP NO.9804 OF 1987 :4: efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from his 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 charge officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.” In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and keeping in view the fact that there is no valid explanation, the impugned order dated 17.9.1986 terminating the services of the petitioner after a period of 14 years of the receipt of reply of the petitioner, is not sustainable in law. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental enquiry, I decline to grant monetary benefits to the petitioner for the period he remained out of service. However, the petitioner shall be granted the benefit of notional increments etc. till the date of his retirement and his salary shall be fixed accordingly. He will also be entitled to consequential benefits of notional increment etc. for the purposes of retiral benefits. Let the CWP NO.9804 OF 1987 :5: retiral benefits be calculated and be paid to him within a period of six months from today. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 03.11.2008 MFK