- (1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to framing of charge-sheet Annexure P/5 dated February 4, 1992. The petitioner, J.S. Sanghera, Superintending Engineer, joined service in 1961. From time to time he was duly promoted and finally in May, 1988, he was promoted as Superintending Engineer. In September, 1988, there were unprecedented heavy rains and floods, resulting in loss of human lives, cattle and crops. In Ferozepur circle, there was damage to the embankments of the canal to the extent of 500 kilometers length. The petitioner was to undertake the repair work of the Ferozepur canal circle. In the newspaper of September, 1989, there were news of false allegations of irregularities committed in the construction work aforesaid. Vigilance Wing of the Irrigation Branch and the Chief Engineer (Vigilance) held separate preliminary enquiries. The petitioner was also associated. However, nothing against the petitioner was brought out in the inquiry. On the basis of the inquiry report, charge-sheets were served upon 4 Executive Engineers, 10 Sub- Divisional Officers and 50 Junior Engineers. Though no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, yet he was conveyed certain remarks vide letter dated December 5, 1989, which were incorporated in his annual confidential report. Annexure P/1 contains such remarks. Annexure P/2 was also served upon the petitioner, which is dated January 12, 1990, calling upon his explanation. Vide order dated May 18, 1990, the petitioner was ordered to be retired premature under Rule 3(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. Copy of the order is Annexure P/4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Civil Writ Petition No. 10333 of 1990, which was allowed on April 30, 1991. Thus, the petitioner was reinstated and joined as Director, R.S.D.D., Chandigarh, on August 22,1991. It was on February 4, 1992, that a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner about the irregularities committed during 1977-79, while using the sand which was not upto the mark for construction. Specifically the charge-sheet is related to the following two matters: "(1) For not making adequate arrangement for the procurement of specified quality of sand and allowing the use of sand of low F.M. for manufacture of concrete for construction of Shah Nehar Barrage resulting into avoidable expenditure of Rs. 3,88,5578/- due to excess consumption of Cement. (2) For including the item of washing of sand in the N.I.T. resulting into infructuous expenditure of Rs. 16,245/-." Annexure P/5 is the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted his reply on December 21, 1992 Thus, in this writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing of the charge- sheet and proceedings initiated thereon after lapse of about 15 years of the alleged irregularities.
(2.) On notice of motion having been issued, written statement has been filed on behalf of the official respondent, inter-alia, admitting the broad facts, however, explaining delay in framing the charge-sheet. Annexure R/1contains a calendar of events explaining the delay. The petitioner submitted replication. Inter-alia, asserting his stand as taken in the petition.
(3.) The matter has already been considered by the Full Bench in Jagir Singh vs. State of Punjab,1993 1 SLR 1 (Punjab & Haryana). After referring to the entire case law, it was observed as under:- - "It is no doubt correct and reasonable also, that departmental proceedings initiated against the employees should be finalised expeditiously. Expeditious disposal helps the employer as well as the employees as it removes uncertainty about the future career of the employees and lessens the financial burden in most of the cases where the employees are either placed under suspension or their promotions etc. are deferred during the pendency of the inquiry. But, for how many months a particular departmental enquiry can be allowed to continue and after the expiry of how many months the approval of the Head of the Department, the Secretary to the Government/the Chief Secretary, the Minister Incharge, or the Cabinet (Council of Ministers) has to be obtained or not, is purely for the employer to consider. In that process the delinquent employee cannot be associated nor does he have any say in the matter. If the State Government have issued certain guidelines for the guidance of the various Departments or the disciplinary authorities to impress upon them the necessity of finalising the Departmental proceedings expeditiously or even within a fixed period, it does not mean that after the expiry of that period, a right in law accrues to the employee to approach the Court of law for the enforcement of those guidelines. The employee may, in a fit case, approach the Court for the quashing of the proceedings, if the pendency of the enquiry has otherwise been protracted and delayed to an unreasonable extent by the employer himself.";