D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Accounts Clerk when an enquiry was started against the petitioner much before 2004. The petitioner was dismissed from the services. Thereafter, a writ petition was instituted by the petitioner which was allowed by the Court but liberty was reserved with the respondents to conduct the enquiry in accordance with law. Against that order, Letters Patent Appeal was instituted by the State which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21st December, 2006 and liberty was reserved with the State authorities to conduct the inquiry in accordance with law and to complete the same as expeditiously as possible and practicable. Despite this permission given by the Division Bench, for several years the State Government was dormant and silent. Thereafter, in April, 2010 the petitioner was suspended for the stale misconduct/charge and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension dated 24th April, 2010.
(2.) THE counsel for the respondents submitted that that it is true that enough time has been wasted in holding the inquiry but one of the reasons in the delay was non -cooperative attitude of the petitioner. Be that as it may be, some more time may be given to the respondents to conclude the enquiry. Prima facie it appears that the State Government's approach is thoroughly lethargic. The concerned Secretary of the Department ought to have taken care to see that in his department, departmental inquiry must be completed within least possible time. It is prime duty vested in the Secretary to take stock of all pending enquiries in his department. Whenever any employee is suspended, the inquiry ought to have been completed as expeditiously as possible and practicable without wasting any time, as the Government has to pay subsistence allowance to the suspended employee upto 50% of salary. It prima facie appears that the Secretary of the concerned department is not aware at all about the fact of the present case because the charges levelled against the petitioner is much older in the point of time. I, therefore, direct the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi to supervise the pending inquiry against the petitioner so that it may be completed within a period of 30 days from today.
(3.) I direct the Registry of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Road Construction Department, Jharkhand Ranchi for expediting the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner.;