Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 8]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Mohinder Kumar Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 29 November, 2022

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Virender Singh

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                          CWP No.5724 of 2022.




                                                                        .

                                          Date of decision:               29.11.2022.


    Mohinder Kumar Thakur                                       .....Petitioner.





                                   Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh and others
                                      .....Respondents.



    Coram
                        r               to
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

    Whether approved for reporting?1 No



    For the Petitioner              :     Mr. Chandranarayana Singh,
                                          Advocate.




    For the Respondents:                   Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate
                                           General with Mr. Rajinder





                                           Dogra,   Senior   Additional
                                           Advocate General, Mr. Vinod
                                           Thakur,   Mr.    Shiv    Pal





                                           Manhans,          Additional
                                           Advocate Generals and Mr.
                                           Bhupinder Thakur, Deputy
                                           Advocate    General,     for
                                           respondent    Nos.    1   to
                                           3/State.




    1
     Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes




                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2022 20:34:34 :::CIS
                                         2




    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed for grant of .

the following substantive reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction quashing the impugned order dated 26.03.2022 (Annexure P-9).
ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction quashing the memorandum of charges dated 01.01.2014 (Annexure P-1 Colly) & close the inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner for all intents and purposes.
iii) Accordingly, issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents department to refix the pay, perks, increments, allowance, grant promotions and other consequential service benefits etc. in favour of the petitioner from the due date, for all intents and purposes.
iv) Accordingly, issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents department to pay arrears of pay, perks, increments, allowance and other consequential financial service benefits etc. with 12% interest within a time bound manner.
v) In alternative in view of revocation of suspension order, issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents department to refix and pay all the pay & perks, increments, allowance, etc. ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2022 20:34:34 :::CIS 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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2022 20:34:34 :::CIS 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.

judgment in Prem The matter came up for consideration before this Court on 24.08.2022 wherein after taking due notice of the 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 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2022 20:34:34 :::CIS 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.

::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2022 20:34:34 :::CIS 6

9. For compliance, to come up on 10.01.2023.

.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Virender Singh) Judge 29th November, 2022.

(krt) ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2022 20:34:34 :::CIS