Union of India &
ANR Vs. H.R.Bangar(Irs) [2008] INSC 1964 (17 November 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.7028 OF 2008 (Arising out
of SLP)No.11722 of 2007) Union of India & Anr. ...
Appellants Versus
H.R.Bangar ( IRS) ...
Respondent ORDER
1.
Delay
condoned.
2.
Leave
granted.
3.
This
appeal is directed against an order dated 6th of March, 2006 passed by a
Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil
Writ Petition No.3541 of 2006 by which the Division Bench of the High Court in
its impugned order stated -"we see no reason whatsoever to interfere in
the well reasoned order of the tribunal." By the order of the tribunal,
the enquiry proceedings which was initiated was closed down on the ground of 2
inordinate delay in completing the proceeding which was affirmed by the
aforesaid impugned order of the High Court. From the order of the tribunal, it
is evident that the tribunal had directed the appellants to complete the
enquiry proceedings initiated against the respondent within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
4.
We
have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the orders of the
tribunal as well as of the High Court and the materials on record. In our view,
the High Court as well as the tribunal was not justified in closing down the
enquiry proceedings against the respondent for the simple reason that the
proceedings were initiated only in 2001 and the High Court as well as the
tribunal failed to appreciate that the charges against the respondent were very
serious, i.e. misappropriation and accepting illegal gratification while in
office. In Deputy 3 Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Faizabad vs. Sachindra
Nath Pandey & Ors. [1995 (3) SCC 134], this court held that mere elapsing
of a long period of 16 years from the date of commencement of the departmental
enquiry was not a sufficient ground to close down the proceeding, more so when
the department alone was not responsible for the delay. In view of the nature
of charges against the respondent which was very serious and following the
decision in the case of Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Faizabad
(supra), we are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order should be set
aside and direction may be given to the authorities concerned to complete the
enquiry proceeding within six months from the date of communication of this
order positively.
Accordingly, we
direct that the authorities concerned shall complete the departmental
proceeding initiated against the respondent 4 within six months from the date
of communication of this order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
parties.
5.
Accordingly,
the impugned orders are set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent
indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
..........................
J. [Tarun Chatterjee]
.............................J.
New
Delhi;
Back
