KEJRIWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who was Technical Officer (Textile) in the department of Industries was sent on deputation as General Manager of Rajasthan Bunkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. for the period from 5. 8. 1977 to 27. 4. 1978. Disciplinary inquiry was initiated against him. On 16. 6. 1978, following charges were levelled against him. : ***
(2.) VIDE Ex. 12, dated 7. 8. 78, the charge-sheet was withdrawn by the Director of Industries. On the same day another charge-sheet was given to the petitioner of the same charges by the Chairman, Rajasthan Bunker Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Again the charge sheet was withdrawn on 13. 2. 1980. On 27. 2. 1980, the Director of Industries again gave charge-sheet to the petitioner of the same charges. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner was considered by the D. P. C. for the post of Assistant Director (T.) but as the inquiry was pending against him, the result of D. P. C. was kept in sealed cover. VIDE order dated 4. 6. 1984, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Director (Textile) on adhoc basis. Again on 27. 1. 1995, IV Charge-sheet marked Ex. 20 was given to the petitioner of the same charges. The petitioner challenged the said charge-sheet on several grounds including the ground of delay and malafide. He has further prayed that the respondents be directed to consider his case for promotion on the post of Assistant- Direc- tor, with effect from 10. 2. 1967 or in the alternative on the post of Assistant Director (Textile) with effect from 1. 4. 1980 and if found, suitable to be promoted on the said post from the date his juniors were promoted after determining his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Director/assistant Director (Textile) and if promoted, be given all consequential benefits. The respondent No. 2, though was served but remained absent. Only the respondent No. 1 has filed reply to the writ petition. It has been mentioned in the reply that the first charge sheet was given to the petitioner by the Director of Industries. Lateron, it was realised that the charges related for the period when the petitioner was on deputation as General Manager in Rajasthan Bunker Sahakari Sangh Ltd. as such charge sheet should be signed by Raj. Bunkar Sangh. Under such circumstances the charge-sheet was withdrawn and another charge sheet was given by the Chairman of the said Bunkar Sangh. Lateron the matter was examined and it was found that the charge-sheet should have been served by the Director of Industries. The second charge sheet which was given by the Chairman of Rajasthan Bunkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. was withdrawn and another charge sheet dated 27. 2. 1980, was given by the Director of Industries. On account of promotion of the petitioner on adhoc basis on the post of Assistant Director (Textile), it was realised that the charge sheet should have been given by the Government. In such circumstances, fresh charge sheet was given to the petitioner on 27. 1. 1995. It has been submitted that the charges against the petitioner are of serious nature and as such the same can not be quashed only on the ground of delay. Mr. Rastogi, counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges relate for the period of 1977-78. The first charge sheet was served on the petitioner on 16. 6. 1978. Subsequently, it was withdrawn and second charge sheet was served on 7. 8. 1978. Again the same was withdrawn and third charge sheet was served on 27. 2. 1980, During the pendency of the third charge sheet the 4th charge sheet was served on the petitioner only with a view to harass him. The third charge sheet which according to the respondents was without jurisdiction was kept pending only with a view to deny promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director (Textile) for which the D. P. C. had already taken place. He further submits that even for the sake of arguments it be taken that after the promotion of the petitioner on adhoc basis vide order dated 4. 6. 1984, it was thought that the charge sheet should have been served by the Government, there is no explanation as to why the respondents remained silent for a period of more than 10 years. The charge sheet deserves to be quashed only on this ground. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on The State of M. P. vs. Bani Singh & Anr. (1), Hari Prakash Kuchhal vs. State of Raj. (2), and S. C. Sharma vs. State and Anr. His next submission is that the petitioner was on deputation for a small period. During this period his work was more satisfactory than other General Managers appointed in Rajasthan Bunkar Sahakari Sangh Ltd. He submitted his representation to the respondents giving the details. His last submission is that the respondents are not paying the amount of pension on account of inquiry. The whole action of the non-petitioner is malafide and deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, Shri Amod Kasliwal, counsel for the respondent submits that the respondents have explained the withdrawal of first and second charge-sheet. The third charge-sheet which was served on the petitioner on 27. 1. 1980, has become infructuous on account of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director (Textile), vide order dated 4. 6. 1984, and under such circumstances the Government had to serve charge sheet on the petitioner. There is no malafide of the Government in issuing fresh charge sheet. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the rulings cited by counsel for the petitioner. There is no satisfactory explanation from the respondents as to why they remained silent for a period of more than 10 years in serving charge sheet when they were aware of this fact that the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Director (Technical), in the year 1984. From the facts which are not in dispute, it is apparent that for the alleged misconduct of the year 1977-78, several charge sheets were served upon the petitioner from time to time with a view to harass him. The case of the petitioner was considered for promotion on the post of Assistant Director (Technical) by the D. P. C. in the year 1984, but his result was kept in sealed cover only on the ground of pendency of 3rd inquiry, which according to the respondents became infructuous on account of adhoc promotion of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director (Textile ). If the respondents were of the view that after promotion the charge sheet should have been served only by the Government, why the sealed cover containing the recommendations of D. P. C. was not opened for 11 years, has not been explained. In the case of the State of M. P. (supra) the Apex Court quashed the charge sheet on the ground that there was no satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet. The same view was taken by this Court in S. C. Sharma's case (supra ). In the present case also the respondents failed to explain the inordinate delay in serving the charge sheet. This case is squarely covered by the judgments referred to above.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, I allow the Writ Petition, quash the charge- sheet dated 27. 1. 1995, marked Annexure 20 and direct the respondents to open the sealed cover and declare the result of the D. P. C. held in the year 1984, for the post of Assistant Director (Textile), and in case the petitioner is found suitable, he should be given notional promotion on the said post, as the petitioner has already retired. The respondents are further directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Dy. Director, from the date his juniors were promoted and in case the petitioner is found suitable for the said post, he should be given notional promotion w. e. f. the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits. This order should be complied with within three months. .;