Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. This Court is of the opinion that charges framed against the writ petitioner are certainly serious in nature and an enquiry was also conducted by the disciplinary authority. On perusal of the charge memo, Annexure 3 provides list of documents which contains twelve documents and Annexure 4 provides list of witnesses containing eleven witnesses. The charges framed and the list of witnesses are also clear in nature. Thus, there is no bar for the disciplinary authority to proceed with the enquiry proceedings in this regard against the writ petitioner. Once the charge memo has been issued against the delinquent official, the disciplinary authority has to proceed with the enquiry proceedings without causing much delay. Long pendency of the charge memo will cause great prejudice to the delinquent officials also. Mere pendency of the criminal case or criminal appeal cannot be a ground for keeping the charge memo in abeyance.

22.However in the writ petition on hand, an order of denial, denying the terminal pensionary benefits is under challenge. Now during the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceeding and criminal appeal, the question of settling the terminal benefits does not arise at all. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was placed under suspension and his services were also retained in accordance with the Fundamental Rules. Thus, the relief regarding the settlement of pensionary benefits at this point of time cannot be entertained. Therefore, this Court has to take note of the fact that the long pendency of the disciplinary proceedings will affect the retired employees and the delinquent officials also deprived of their terminal benefits in time. In these circumstances, it is the duty of the competent authority to see that no delay is caused on account of long pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. It is their duty to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable period of time. Only if there is any genuine reason for delay in this regard, the same can be accepted. However, the delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings cannot be caused merely on the ground that the criminal appeal is pending before any Court. Mere pendency of criminal appeal is not a bar for departmental disciplinary proceedings and in this case, the charge memo was also issued against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 10.03.2007 and for the last about ten years, the same is kept pending without any progress, on account of pendency of the criminal appeal as well as criminal case. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no bar to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings.