MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition the petitioner, holding the post of senior teacher at Government Secondary School, Dharamdhari (Pali), seeks the reliefs in the nature of (i) annulment of department enquiry on the ground of delay of about 11 years in initiation of proceedings from the date of alleged incident and further for the respondents having failed to conclude the proceedings for 10 years; (ii) restraining the respondents from passing any adverse order for the petitioner having remained in custody for more than 48 hours after his conviction was affirmed by the appellate court; and (iii) for directions to the respondents to consider his representation sympathetically.
(2.) THE relevant facts leading to this petition as noticeable from the averments taken and material placed on record by the petitioner could be summarized thus: The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 323,324,326 & 307 I PC in an FIR lodged on 26. 06. 1986; after investigation challan was filed and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court but was remitted to the concerned Magistrate for trial of the petitioner for offences under Sections 323,324 & 326 I PC, after the Sessions Court found that no case was made out under Section 307 IPC; and, after trial in Cr. Regular Case No. 135/1992 (62/1986), the petitioner was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran on 25. 11. 2002 for offences under Sections 323,324 & 326 IPC and was awarded varying sentences, including one years' R. l. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 326 IPC. The petitioner preferred an appeal [no. 32/2005 (49/2002)] that came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Pali, HQ-Jaitaran by the Judgment dated 06. 09. 2007. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred a revision petition to this Court (S. B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 962/2007) that was admitted on 07. 09. 2007 and this Court suspended the execution of the sentence awarded to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was detained in custody on 06. 09. 2007 upon dismissal of his appeal; and, as averred, could be released only on 10. 09. 2007, for intervening holidays after passing of suspension order by this court. On the other hand, according to the petitioner, in the year 1997 the Department served him with a charge sheet leveling the allegation of his implication in the criminal case aforesaid. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that the charge sheet was misplaced and was not available with him for the time being. Be that as it may, according to the petitioner, the Vigilance Committee of the respondents found in the year 1996 that a criminal case has been lodged against him and upon recommendation of the Collector concerned, it was decided to hold a departmental enquiry; an explanation letter dated 04. 06. 1997 was issued to the petitioner (Annex. 1); by another order dated 04. 06. 1997 he was put under suspension (Annex. 2); and after completion of six months, the subsistence allowance was increased to 75% of his pay by the order dated 20. 01. 1998 (Annex. 3); and later, by the order dated 11. 02. 1999 (Annex. 4), his suspension was revoked and he was informed orally that disciplinary proceedings were kept in abeyance till disposal of the criminal case. The petitioner has further averred that after passing of the judgment dated 25. 11. 2002 by the learned trial court, he received a letter dated 02. 06. 2003 (Annex. 5) from the respondent No. 4 requiring a copy of judgment delivered by criminal court; and he replied on 03. 07. 2003 (Annex. 6) to the effect that the appellate court has suspended the sentence awarded by the trial court. According to the petitioner, after his submission of reply, nothing was heard from the side of the respondents and departmental enquiry initiated against him remained pending; and, for his annual grade increments having been withheld, he has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The petitioner has averred that he remained in custody for more than 48 hours for none of his fault and there was likelihood that respondents would terminate his services in pursuance of the departmental enquiry under Rule 13 (2) of Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 for his having remained in detention for more than 48 hours upon conviction. The petitioner would submit that his apprehension is not imaginary as he has received a letter dated 12. 09. 2007 (Annex. 8) asking for explanation with regard to his absence from duty for the period 07. 09. 2007 to 11. 09. 2007 and regarding his conviction. The petitioner has averred that he submitted a reply on 14. 09. 2007 (Annex. 9) pointing out all the facts and prayed for condonation of absence from 07. 09. 2007 to 11. 09. 2007 by sanctioning leave for the said period; and since disciplinary proceedings were earlier kept in abeyance on the ground of pendency of criminal trial, and now the revision petition was pending before the High Court, hence, such disciplinary proceedings should be kept in abeyance till the disposal of revision petition, the charges being similar. After such averments, the petitioner has submitted that it was crystal clear that the departmental enquiry initiated against him suffers from delay and laches as the same was initiated after 11 years from the date of lodging of criminal case and was pending for last 10 years for none of his fault. The petitioner would, therefore, conclude that the respondents are not interested in terminating departmental enquiry; and urge that if now the respondents are allowed to continue with the delayed disciplinary proceedings or allowed to take any action on the 'pretext' of his conviction and detention for a period more than 48 hours, serious prejudice would be caused to him.
(3.) ON the propositions aforesaid, the petitioner has chosen to prefer this petition for writ seeking the reliefs that initiation of departmental enquiry after lapse of 11 years from the date of incident be held fatal; the respondents be held to have failed to conclude the departmental enquiry for a prolonged period of 10 years and such delay has vitiated the entire proceedings; the respondents may be restrained from passing any order of removal against the petitioner; it be held that there was no fault on the part of petitioner for being in jail for more than 48 hours because the bail bonds in pursuance of the order dated 07. 09. 2007 could not be executed immediately on account of public holidays next two days; and it be also ordered that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the letter dated 12. 09. 2007 be considered sympathetically by the respondents and absence for the period 07. 09. 2007 to 11. 09. 2007 may be condoned and be treated as leave. Arguing for the petitioner, learned counsel has vehemently contended that the enquiry proceedings having been initiated after an inordinate delay and then having been kept pending for further prolonged period cannot be proceeded further and delay itself being fatal, the proceedings deserve to be quashed. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner never sought any adjournment, there was no fault on his part, and yet, the Department kept the matter pending and such pending proceedings cannot now be continued further. Learned counsel submitted that the Department had never been serious in conducting the departmental enquiry though the fact of conviction of the petitioner was in its knowledge earlier too. Learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. V. Mahadevan Vs. M. D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board: AIR 2006 SC 207 and in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan: AIR 1998 SC 1833 and has also relied upon the principles laid down in the case of A. R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak: (1992) 1 SCC 225 as quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Radhakishan's case (supra ). Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, having perused the material placed on record, and having examined the law applicable to the case, this court is clearly of opinion that this writ petition does not merit admission. ;