MOHINDER KUMAR THAKUR v. STATE OF HP AND ORS

3

and other consequential service benefits etc. in favour of the petitioner from the due date, for all intents and purposes within a time bound manner."

2. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated in the year 2014, by issuing a charge-sheet, dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-1). The same have not been taken to its logical end and in fact, new Inquiry Officer has been appointed to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner in view of the retirement of the earlier Inquiry Officer.

3. The moot question in such circumstances is:

whether the Inquiry Officer be permitted to conduct inquiry in perpetuity especially in view of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as laid down in Prem Nath Bali

versus Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Another, (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 415, wherein, in paragraph 28, it has been observed as under:-

"28. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far

4

as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time-frame then efforts should be made to conclude within the reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year".

4. The matter came up for consideration before this Court on 24.08.2022 wherein after taking due notice of the judgment in Prem Nath Bali's case (supra), the respondents-State was put to a caveat and in the meanwhile the operation of the impugned order dated 26.03.2022 (Annexure P-9) was ordered to be stayed.

5. Subsequently, the matter came up for filing reply on 12.10.2022, 16.11.2022 and 21.11.2022. But, the State has failed to file its reply despite repeated communications from the Office of the learned Advocate General, as have been shown to us, in the open Court and probably rightly so because after-all the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali's case

(supra) is absolutely clear and explicit when it not only makes it incumbent upon the employer in the public

5

sector, but even makes it incumbent upon the private employer to conclude the departmental inquiry within a reasonable time, six months being an outer limit.

6. As already observed above, the departmental proceedings in the instant case were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2014 by issuing charge-sheet dated 01.01.2014. Obviously, these proceedings cannot continue in perpetuity in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Bali's case (supra).

7. Accordingly, we find merit in this petition and the same is allowed. Consequently, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet dated 01.01.2014 are quashed and set aside. As a consequence thereof, the respondents are directed to refix the pay and grant all perks, increments, allowance, promotion and, in short, all actual consequential benefits, be it monetary or non-monetary, in favour of the petitioner from the due date, which will be paid to him, within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

6

9. For compliance, to come up on 10.01.2023. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan)

Judge

(Virender Singh)

Judge

29^th November, 2022.

(krt)