MATHUR, J. - (1.) BY this petition for writ, a challenge is given by the petitioner to the order dated 16. 1. 1999 passed by the disciplinary authority i. e. , the Government of Rajasthan imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by a memorandum dated 15. 4. 1995 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958.
(2.) BY the memorandum dated 15. 4. 1995, the petitioner was directed to submit an explanation for the allegations of misconduct levelled against him. The allegations pertain to the year 1982-83 when the petitioner was holding the post of Sub- Divisional Soil Conservator Officer. In all, four allegations were levelled against him. The allegation No. 1 is that the petitioner while holding the office above changed the name of office from Sub-Divisional Soil Conservator Officer, DPAP, Bikaner to the office of Assistant Soil Conservator Engineer, DPAP, Bikaner. The allegation No. 2 is that the petitioner advanced a sum of Rs. 1400/- for repairing Government vehicle and he withheld this money unauthorisedly for a period of three months. The allegation No. 3 is that the petitioner erroneously withdrawn some amount for repairing of Government equipments. The allegation No. 4 is that the petitioner made the payment of salary to one Shri Shambhu Singh, Tracer though he remained absent from duties from 8. 11. 1982 to 19. 11. 1982. The petitioner by a communication dated 8. 5. 1993 while denying the allegations levelled against him made a request to the respondents to permit him to inspect the relevant record, as the allegations were pertaining to year 1982-83. The petitioner also stated in the communication dated 8. 5. 1993 that as the charge-sheet has been served upon him at quite a belated stage, therefore, he shall not be in a position to defend himself effectively. The respondents treated the communication dated 8. 5. 1993 as reply to the charge-sheet and appointed an Inquiry Officer to inquire into theallegations levelled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry and submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority on 10. 4. 1996. The Inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte against the petitioner as the petitioner failed to attend inquiry proceedings on 19. 1. 1996. After proceeding ex parte the Inquiring Authority recorded the statement of one Shri Gurcharan Singh (PW. 1) to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer on basis of the statement given by the Shri Gurcharan Singh and on relying upon certain documents marked as Ex. 1 to Ex. 25 found the petitioner guilty for all the four allegations levelled under the memo dated 15. 4. 1995. The Disciplinary Authority, after receiving the inquiry report and record of the inquiry, by the order impugned imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension upon the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same preferred a review petition under Rule 34 of the rules of 1958. The same also stood rejected by an order dated 22. 2. 2000 under the order of the Governor of Rajasthan. Hence, this petition is preferred by the petitioner. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is contended by the respondents that a proposal was received from Agriculture Department for initiating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the rules of 1958 against the petitioner on 28. 3. 1988. The matter was examined by the competent authority and thereafter under the memorandum dated 15. 4. 1995 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The respondents have also contended that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is an order with sufficient reasons. It is also stated that the petitioner was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer, and therefore, the disciplinary Authority while accepting the findings given by the Inquiry Officer imposed punishment of compulsory retirement. It is also averred that before imposing the punishment advise of Rajasthan Public Service Commission was also sought and the Commission also advised for imposing the proposed punishment i. e. , of compulsory retirement with proportionate pension.
(3.) I have heard Shri Arun Prakash, the petitioner, present in person and the counsel for the respondents. The first contention of the petitioner is that by the memorandum dated 15. 4. 1995 he was charged for the act of misconduct which is said to have taken place in the year 1982-83. According to the petitioner, it was humanly impossible for him to defend himself for such stale charges. It is the position admitted that the charges for which the petitioner was subjected to an inquiry relates to the year 1982-83. The respondents in their reply have stated that at the first instance the Agriculture Department sent proposal for initiating disciplinary proceedings on 28. 3. 1988, and thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the memorandum dated 15. 4. 1995. Nothing has been said by the respondents as to why the Department of Agriculture was sitting tight over the matter for about a period of five years and thereafter what prevented the State Government from framing definite charges against the petitioner immediately after receiving proposal for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. If the respondents would have acted with diligence and with all promptness the petitioner also would have in better position to defend himself at earliest. It is well settled that an authority vested with powers is required to exercise such powers as and when required to be exercised without any delay. The inordinate delay in exercise of such powers not only dilutes the issue but also creates rights in favour of the person, who may be effected by initiation of action under such powers and the rights so accrued may not be defended effectively due to the lapse of time. Beside this an issue can not be left open for all times to come and for indefinite period due to inaction on the part of the authority vested with powers. In the matters pertaining to discipline the Disciplinary Authority must take action promptly and with all diligence immediately on knowing about the misconduct of the employee. Where such action has not been taken by the authority concerned for years together, even after knowing about the misconduct said to be committed, permission cannot be granted to take the action at belated stage. In the present case, the Agriculture Department on 28. 3. 1988 sent proposal for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for an act of 1982-83 and thereafter too, no action was taken by the Disciplinary Authority for a period of more than seven years. The rs also failed to give any reason for such delay. No reason or explanation is given by the respondents for initiating disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of period of about 13 years. In view of it, I am of considered opinion that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings at such a belated stage is nothing but is an arbitrary exercise of powers. It is humanly impossible for an employee to defend himself at such belated stage. The same, therefore, deserves to be declared illegal. Besides the fact that charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner at quite a belated stage, it is also apparent that no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. The ex parte proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by the respondents merely because he failed to remain present on 19. 1. 1996. The basic duty of the Inquiring Authority is to inquire into the allegations with all objectivity. Initiation of ex parte proceedings is an exception. This recourse is not required to be adopted in normal course. Ex parte proceedings should be initiated only if the Inquiry Officer is satisfied that the delinquent employee is not co-operating with the inquiry proceedings malafidely and with a view to prolong the disciplinary action. In the present case this was not the situation. The petitioner remained absent only on a day and the Inquiry Officer ordered to proceed ex parte. In fact, there was no need to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. One more opportunity could have been given to the petitioner. ;