R K AJMANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
R K AJMANI
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Having regard to the nature of issue raised before us it is not necessary to
take note of the facts in detail, suffice is to state that the petitioner was
served with the charge-sheet dated 7.7.2004 and inquiry initiated against him on
the basis of said charge-sheet by appointing Inquiry Officer and Presenting
Officer. On the ground that charge leveled in the said charge-sheet was more
than 15 years old, the petitioner filed O.A.No.1531/2005 for quashing of the
charge-sheet and protection of his service rights including promotion. This OA
was disposed of vide orders dated 7.11.2005 by the Tribunal. Charge-sheet was
not quashed but the respondents were given two months time to complete the
inquiry failing which it was directed that the proceedings would abate. The
petitioner even filed Revision Petition which was dismissed.
(2.) The inquiry could not be completed within two months and the respondents filed
M.A.No.133/2006 seeking extension of further four months time to complete the
inquiry. Vide orders dated 21.2.2006 three months extension was granted to
complete the proceedings and the Department was directed to hold the proceedings
on day-to-day basis without fail. The petitioner sought review of this order as
well which review application was dismissed. Aggrieved against this, the
petitioner approached this Court and filed the writ petition which was disposed
of vide orders dated 24.3.2006 observing as under:
"We are of the view that since extension has already been granted, inquiry
should be completed within the period of extension and no further time is
required to be granted for completing the inquiry, provided the petitioner
cooperates for expeditious disposal of the inquiry. The impugned order states
that the disciplinary proceedings shall be held day-to-day. The petitioner
shall co-operate with the inquiry."
(3.) The inquiry could not be completed even within the aforesaid extended time.
The respondents again moved M.A.No.992/2006 on 31.5.2006 seeking further
extension of one month s time. This application came up for hearing on
12.7.2006 and was adjourned to 1.8.2006. In the meantime orders dated 18.7.2006
were passed by the Department imposing the penalty of censure upon the
petitioner. On 1.8.2006 the M.A. filed by the respondents for further extension
of time, taken up for hearing and taking note of the fact that the Disciplinary
Authority had already passed orders dated 18.7.2006, extension of time up to the
last date was granted. The operative portion of this order reads as under:
"Applicant has objected to the passing of final orders beyond the stipulated
period. He stated that period for the purpose should not be extended. We do
not find any substance in the objection raised by applicant.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, final orders in the disciplinary
proceedings against the applicant having been passed on 18.7.2006, extension of
time up to 18.7.2006 is deemed to have been granted. MA.992/2006 as such is
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.