Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Should the enquiry proceedings be quashed on the ground of long pendency alone?

2. It is expedient to collate the facts and circumstances under which the case has come before the Full Bench. Though facts in the writ petitions being disposed of by this judgment are distinct but in order to answer the questions succinctly facts from civil writ petition No. 4970 of 1988 Dr. Ishar Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. may be taken.

3. Petitioner joined as Assistant Dental Surgeon in the year, 1949. He was promoted to various, posts including that of head of the Department in 1975. Lastly he was promoted and posted as Principal; Dental College & Hospital, Amritsar. He. retired from service on superannuation on 31.8.1982. The petitioner's son was admitted to the M.D.S. Course, in the specialisation of oral surgery in Guru Nanak University on 26.8.1977. On the eve of his retirement i.e. on 30.8.1982 a day prior to his superannuation charges were levelled against the petitioner that while posted as Principal, Dental College & Hospital, Amritsar, (i) he fraudulently and dishonestly secured admission of his son in M.D.S. Course by attesting a copy of a forged certificate certifying his son having secured higher marks then infact secured by him in his B.D.S. Examination; (ii) he in connivance with his subordinates caused disappearance of the original record with regard to the admission of his son.

Resultantly, the conclusion warranted from the above discussion is :-(i) The Government can continue with the departmental enquiry proceedings initiated before retirement of a person irrespective of the time lag between the incident and superannuation of the employee, (ii) The enquiry proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the ground of long pendency alone, (iii) The Government can continue with the departmental enquiry initiated after long lapse of the alleged incident inspite of the fact that the delinquent has Superannuated, (iv) There is no discrimination in providing limitation for commencement of the enquiry proceedings after the retirement and not providing such limitation in cases where the person is in service. the consequences of delay would be judged in the facts and circumstances of each case.

(iv) The Government can initiate Departmental enquiry after long lapse before retirement, rather there is no limitation for initiating the departmental enquiry from the date of incident before retirement. The delay and the explanation for the same may reasonably be taken note of keeping in view its likelihood to cause prejudice to the delinquent if the enquiry is challenged in appropriate proceedings.
(v) The enquiry proceedings cannot be quashed solely on the ground of long pendency.
(vi) There is no effect of superannuation on the pendency of the enquiry proceedings.