- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has retired since long, but, he is not getting any retirement benefits, nay even provisional pension. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that an enquiry has been initated against the petitioner and is ponding since November, 2007.
(2.) IT ought to have been kept in mind by respondent no. 2 that once the charge -sheet is issued and enquiry has been started, it ought to have been ended with an order without any loss of time because pendency of an enquiry has a direct nexus with several aspects of the services like promotion, payment of retirement benefits etc. Such a simple jurisprudence of service has been lost sight of by respondent no. 2. Copy of the petition was served in August, 2008. Nothing has been done, so far, by respondent no. 2, nor by his appointee i.e. Enquiry Officer. Thoroughly lethargic, callous and casual is the approach on the part of 'the respondents' officers as well as on the part of the Enquiry Officer. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delinquent is not a beggar before the Enquiry Officer. No step has been taken even to pay even provisional amount of pension and it is difficult now -a -days to survive in absence of salary, without even provisional pension amount.
(3.) MR . Promod Kumar Gupta S/o late Sumeer Chandra Gupta, who is an Enquiry Officer, is present in this Court, stated that he has recently completed one more enquiry, which was also pending since more than twelve months period. In the present case also, from 2007 onwards, enquiry is going on and the petitioner is not getting any retirement benefits. Respondent No. 2 ought to have kept in mind that an efficient and vigilant Enquiry Officer ought to have been appointed and not lethargic one because pendency of enquiry has far reaching consequences in the service period of a salaried man. A lethargic officer should never be appointed as an Enquiry Officer otherwise, Enquiry Officer shall have to face an enquiry. There is no stay against the completion of the enquiry, still for the reasons best known to the Enquiry Officer, he has not yet completed the enquiry. This aspect of the matter ought to have been kept in mind by respondent no. 2.;