Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. It is next submitted that record of final inquiry has been lost and by means of order dated 23.12.2024, the District Judge, Lucknow has passed order for re-constructions of the missing record of Final Inquiry No. 6 of 2006, but as per the counter affidavit filed today, it is evident that the record cannot be re-constructed, considering the fact that the matter is quite old and documents in this regard are not available and some of the employees, in the meanwhile have also retired.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that respondents be granted some time to re-construct the missing file and conclude the proceedings with expedition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has submitted that it would be inequitable to permit the inquiry to be conducted after a period of 19 years, specially looking to the fact that the petitioner has submitted his reply in October, 2006 itself and it is only after the present writ petition being filed, the respondents have passed orders for re-constructions of the missing file and no action has been taken by them in the intervening period of nearly 18 years.

9. It is further submitted that whether the respondents can be directed to proceed with the inquiry which is pending for last 18 years, has been subject matter of judicial review by various Courts and the view taken in this regard is that mere fact that inquiry is pending for long period of time, would be a ground in itself for quashing the entire proceedings. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Rattan Lal - Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5287 of 2006 (decided on 01.11.2023), wherein the Court in para nos. 19, 20 and 21, has cited various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the following manner :-

11. Considering the response of the respondents, undoubtedly, it is the responsibility of the employer/disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings with expedition within reasonable period of time. In case file of disciplinary proceedings was missing, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have re-constructed the file at the earliest and conclude the proceedings with expedition.

12. The aspect of loss of file, it seems was never taken cognizance of by the respondents nor any steps were taken for re-constructions of the missing file. Even when directions were issued by the District Judge to re-construction of file on 23.12.2004, the Additional District and Sessions Judge has submitted a report on 06.02.2025, seeking further time to re-construct the file.

16. From the above, it is clear that ninteen years time has lapsed and the delay is attributable only to the respondents. This Court finds that no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming with regard to delay in proceeding with the disciplinary inquiry in the counter affidavit, which may indicate as to why file was not re-constituted immediately after it was found to be missing. It seems that even the aspect that file was missing has been found out after filing of writ petition by the petitioner.