Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been preferred by the State against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 103 of 2013(R). The order has been passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi and the application preferred by the respondent was allowed vide order dated 19th November, 2013, which is at annexure 4 to the memo of this writ petition. While allowing the application preferred by the respondent, the long drawn pending enquiry for the so called misconduct of 1996 has been quashed and set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal mainly for the reason that the cause was stale cause and there was also a direction given previously by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 97 of 2003 dated 16th February, 2006 to complete the departmental proceedings against the respondent, but, as usual, the State of Jharkhand was unable to complete the departmental proceedings and, therefore, Central Administrative Tribunal has quashed and set aside the enquiry. Too much lethargy for longer time is fatal, this is the gist, sum and substance of the impugned order and, therefore, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand submitted that time limit to complete enquiry depends upon the nature of misconduct. Grave the misconduct, larger time should be given to complete the enquiry. It is further submitted by the counsel for the State of Jharkhand that the time has lapsed partly because of State of Jharkhand and partly due to several other factors which has been written in the written statement filed in O.A. No. 103 of 2013(R) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has been mentioned in para 4 of the impugned order. Time and again the letters were written by the State of Jharkhand to the Central Government and there is long correspondence between the Central Government and State Government and, therefore, enquiry could not be completed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in: - - "(a) : (2012) 11 SCC 565 (b) : (2013) 6 SCC 530 (c) : (2013) 6 SCC 515" On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that still more time should have been given to complete the enquiry for the misconduct of the year 1996, which is pending since 1996 onwards. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Central Administrative Tribunal and hence this order may kindly be quashed and set aside and further suitable time to the State may be given to complete the enquiry and departmental proceeding pending against the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has not committed any misconduct as alleged by the State. The so called misconduct is of the year 1996 and it could not be completed for several months. Ultimately, the application bearing O.A. No. 97 of 2003 was preferred by the present respondent before Central Administrative Tribunal, which was finally disposed of by Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 16th February, 2006 and a direction was given to the State of Jharkhand to complete the departmental proceedings as early as possible to conclude the departmental proceedings expeditiously. Despite this order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal for several years again this respondent waited, waited and waited. Several chances of promotions have also been lost. The whole service career of the respondent was at stake. Nobody was listening this respondent. Every state of affair of the State of Jharkhand for holding the departmental enquiry was at chaos. Everything was within the files, nothing was proved at all. Proceedings were adjourned frequently without any justifiable reasons, at the behest of the State of Jharkhand for one or other whimsical and non -sustainable grounds. Therefore, once again the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and preferred O.A. No. 103 of 2013(R) in which order has been passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing and setting aside the departmental proceedings against the misconduct was so stale that now it was not thought fit for Central Administrative Tribunal to give more time to the State of Jharkhand. Enough is enough. No employee of the State can wait for decades to come and lose every chance of promotion in a service career. Perhaps, the delay might have been caused because others can be promoted leaving aside this respondent. The order was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 19th November, 2013 and thereafter, this respondent was promoted vide order dated 03rd April, 2014 as Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and this writ petition has been preferred after giving promotion to this respondent on 07th May, 2014. Now this respondent is at the fag end of his service career and he is reaching his age of superannuation in the year 2016. Most of the years of his service career have been wasted by the State of Jharkhand and no error has been committed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in quashing and setting aside the long drawn pending departmental proceedings for the so called misconduct of the year 1996. In fact, the land in question was never given by this respondent alone. There are several officials of the State and promotion of high ranking officers is a must. It is not a one man's job. Several things respondent can speak, so far as denial of the charges are concerned, but the fact remains that nothing has been proved so far by the State of Jharkhand and in the next year this respondent is going to the age of superannuation. Hence, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons;