P.K.Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) This application has been filed praying for modification of the order dated 6th July. 2004 passed by Barin Ghosh, J. (as His lordship then was) in the writ petition, being C.O.13088(W) of 1998, whereby and whereunder it was directed that the pending departmental proceeding should be completed as expeditiously as possible but not later than seven months from the date of service of the copy of the order upon the disciplinary authority. The modification, as prayed for, is extension of the time limit to conclude the departmental proceeding. The petitioner of the writ application who is an employee of the present applicant, West Bengal State Food Processing & Horticulture Development Corporation Ltd.. an undertaking of the State Government, was charged under four counts of charges which reads to this effect. "Article - I That he unauthorisedly went to the Project Office of the Company at Jalpaiguri and tried to decamp with bottles and other articles of the Company worth several lacs of rupees stored therein, in a truck on 25.11.89 at about 11 A.M. accompanied by two unidentified person. Article - II That on being resisted in that not by guards of the Company posted at the project office he threatened them with dismissal from service. Article - III That on 25.11.89 although he was in Jalpaiguri yet he falsely stated that he visited the office of the Company's supplied W/s Neeta Fruit Products at Kankinara and on the basis of the aforesaid false statement succeeded in obtaining the Traveling allowance for out station visit on that date. Article - IV That he travelled to Bhagalpur on 20.4.89 by 33 Up Benaras Express on some Company's business, although he did not travel in first class from Calcutta to Bhagalpur by Mail yet on his return he submitted a bill claiming to have traveled in 1st class by Mail and got the advance taken by him early for the purpose, adjusted. The aforesaid acts of Shri S.Chowdhury, if proved, will amount to criminal offence of very serious nature involving moral turpitude."
(3.) The departmental proceeding became the subject matter of the challenge in the said writ application praying for quashing of the entire departmental proceeding. Barin Ghosh, J. as His Lordship then was, disposed of the writ application by not entertaining the prayer for quashing of the departmental proceeding, but directed finality of the said proceeding within certain period, namely, seven months, as already stated. The order dated 6th July, 2004 passed by Barin Ghosh, J. reads to this effect. "It is unfortunate that this writ petition is pending since 1990 where the main grievance of the petitioner is that a disciplinary proceeding which has been initiated against him has not yet been concluded and as a result although the petitioner has been found to be eligible for a higher posting, he has not received the benefit of such decision, for the same has been kept in abeyance awaiting conclusion in the disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Kar, appearing on behalf of the respondent-employer, has submitted that there is no just reason for keeping this disciplinary proceeding pending for ages. He has been candid to the court that it should be the earnest endeavour on the part of the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary proceeding as quickly as possible. He has submitted that for some reason or the other, this could not be done but given a little more time, the disciplinay authority will complete the disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law at an early date. In such view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the disciplinary authority to see to it that the disciplinary proceedings reach final conclusion in the form of final order to be passed in the disciplinary proceedings as quickly as possible but not later than seven months from the date of service of copy of this order upon the disciplinary authority. In the event the disciplinary authority is required to take any step for the purpose of completion of the disciplinary proceedings including appointment of a fresh Enquiry Officer, the same must be done, including all other things, within the time mentioned above. This time limit, goes without saying, shall automatically stand extended in the event the petitioner does not co-operate with the disciplinary proceedings." It is further made clear that if the disciplinary authority ultimately concludes that there is no necessity of disciplining the petitioner, it goes without saying that the petitioner shall be given everything which has not been given to him in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.";