Sohan Singh Rawat v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Nagar Vikas, Government of U.P., Secretariat, Lucknow

orders dated 3.7.2003 (Annexure-16 and 17 to the writ petition). 6- The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the petitioner while posted at Nagar Palika, Saharanpur in the year 1980 recommended regularization of five Beldars while there was no post of Beldar available in Nagar Palika, Saharanpur. It has also been pleaded that while the petitioner was posted at Nagar Palika, Haldwani, he appointed 15 persons on class-IV post in the year 1990 in violation of the Government Orders. Therefore, the deduction in the pension and gratuity form the petitioner has rightly been made. 7- Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8- It appears from record that the matter of regularization of Beldar in Nagar Palika, Saharanpur pertains to the year 1980. The record shows that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated in this regard by the department for a long time and the department has also not averred any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceeding. 9- Likewise the record reveals that the another charge was leveled against the petitioner for giving appointment to 15 persons on class –IV posts in the year 1990 while he was posted at Nagar Palika, Haldwani. No disciplinary enquiry has also been initiated in this regard for a long time and the explanation for this inordinate delay has also not been put forward by the respondent, therefore, we hold that it would be unfair on the part of the department to hold the enquiry after the inordinate delay and to proceed further at the late stage. 10- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and another reported in 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 738 has held that “if the department has taken long time in initiating disciplinary proceeding and there is no satisfactory explanation for this inordinate delay, then it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to proceed.” 11- The department has not come with a case that they were not aware of the irregularities, if any, and came to know only in the year 1998 and 2001. It does not appear from the record that the matter with regard to the regularization of the Beldars came in the knowledge of the department in the year 1998 for the first time. Similarly the matter with regard to the appointment of 15 class IV employees in the Nagar Palika Haldwani in the year 1990 did not come in the Knowledge of the department upto 2001, i.e. after about 11 years. Therefore we do not find anything on the record that the department has put any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. 12- It also reveals from the record that the petitioner was to retire on 30-9-1999 and just before his retirement the initiation of the departmental proceeding in stale issued of more than 20 years old appears to be quite illegal and arbitrary. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathi Vs. Board of Director and others, reported in A.I.R. 1999 (3) Page- 1841 (Supreme Court) has held that after the retirement the continuation or initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, is illegal and arbitrary. 13- In the instant case the charges leveled against the petitioner appear to be quite sale, hence it would be absolutely unfair on the part of the department in passing the orders contained in Annexure- 13, 14, 16 and 17 to the writ petition. 14- In view of above, the writ petition is liable to be allowed impugned orders dated 30-6-2003, contained Annexure 13 and 14 as well as orders dated 3.7.2003, contained in Annexures- 16 and 17 are liable to be quashed. 15- Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 30-6-2003, contained in Annexures 13 and 14 as well as the impugned orders dated 3.7.2003, contained in Annexures- 16 and 17 are hereby quashed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) (P.C. Verma, J.)