Judgment:
1. The applicant has prayed for quashing the enquiry proceedings including the order dated 24.02.1997 communicated vide letter dated 16.06.1997 (Annexure- 3 to the O.A), letter dated 07.03.1996, 24.06.1996 and 11.12.1999 issued by the Enquiry Officer (Annexure- 1, 2 and 4 respectively to the O.A) coupled with prayer for restraining the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry afresh after it was closed on 08.01.1994.
2. In brief, the case of the applicant is that he worked as Casual labour for some period in the year 1979 namely from 16.06.79 to 30.06.79 (15 days), 29 days in July, 1979, 28 days in August, 1979, 17 days in October, 1979, 15 days in November, 1979, i.e for total 106 days under Work Inspector, North Eastern Railway, Chhappara. He has stated that the applicant was issued a work certificate, which he submitted to the Enquiry Committee on 12.08.1989 for the purposes of verification of the working period. In the year 1992, He was served with a charge sheet alleging that he had secured employment by submitting a false certificate about his work from 16.06.1979 to 30.06.1979 and was subjected to usual disciplinary proceedings. The applicant submitted his reply and thereafter an oral enquiry was conducted. However, Annexure -8 of the O.A reveals that the enquiry stood closed on 08.01.1994. The matter remain at that till March 1996, when the applicant was served with letter dated 07.03.1996 (Annexure- a to the O.A) saying that enquiry was going to held again under rule 10(2) of Railway Servants (discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and asking the applicant to nominate 2 persons as Defence Assistant.
3. The applicant protested against the fresh enquiry and in reply thereto, the Enquiry Officer informed him vide his letter dated 24.06.1996 (Annexure- 2 to the O.A) that the present enquiry have nothing to do with the previous enquiry. The Enquiry Officer again issued another letter dated 16.06.1997 asking the applicant to nominate another Defence Assistant etc. The applicant is challenging all these communications of 1996 on the ground that the same were in breach of relevant rules of 1969 and if the enquiry is going to be held afresh, he should have been apprised of the fresh charges, which was not done.
The enquiry proceedings are also being challenged on the ground that these are pending for the last more than 13/14 years and the applicant has unnecessarily been mentally harassed for this period and has also been deprived of regularization etc. on the ground of tendency of this proceeding.
4. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by saying that the action of the respondents were fully justified in making further enquiry in 1996 , when few documents came in to light. The written statement is however, silent on the point as to whether after closer of oral enquiry on 08.01.1994, as indicated in Annexure- 8, the then Enquiry Officer had submitted his report and whether the disciplinary authority had applied his mind to that enquiry and had taken any cautious decision for fresh or further enquiry under Rule 10(2) of Rules 1968. The reply is also not clear on the point as to what prevented the authority concerned/Enquiry Officer from submitting the result of enquiry to the disciplinary authority and keeping the matter at that for about 2 years.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that these 4 communications Annexure 1, 2, 3, and 4 deserves to be quashed on the simple ground that the respondents have not disclosed in so many words that no enquiry report was submitted by the previous Enquiry Officer after closer of the oral enquiry on 08.01.1994 or enquiry report submitted by him was not agreed to by the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority exercised his powers under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Rules 1968 for holding further or fresh enquiry.
6. On the basis of material on record, we find substance in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant.
Nothing has been placed on record to show that any power under rule 10(2) of Rules 1968 were exercised on the enquiry report submitted by the then Enquiry Officer. Neither the copy of any such order has been placed on record nor it has been averred in so many words that the same were exercised as per Rule 10(2) of Rules 1968. In absence of any report of the then Enquiry Officer, who concluded the enquiry on 08.01.1994, such power under rule 10(2) of Rules 1968 could not have been exercised. There appears to be no basis with the authorities to make a fresh or further enquiry particularly in the circumstances when the matter had already been enquiry into as back as in January 1994.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the entire proceeding had been pending for the last more than 13/14 years without any fault attributable to the applicant and so in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Stat of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
v. N. Radhakrishnan 1998 (SLR) Vol. 2 (page 786) , the same deserves to be quashed. He says that no good ground have been disclosed for keeping such matter alive for all these 13/14 years and that to in a case pity class IV employee. Learned Counsel further submits that the applicant had already suffered a lot owing to the pendency of these proceedings and so he is entitled to relief at the earliest possible.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents has however, submitted that mere delay itself will not be a ground to quash the proceedings. He submits that the delay has also been explained and it cannot be said that the applicant was not responsible for this delay.
9. We have considered the respective submissions on this point also and we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings itself vitiates the proceedings. None of the Government Servant could be kept under the threat of such proceedings for unduly long period without none of his fault. Such proceedings should be concluded at the earliest possible in the interest of government servant as well as in the interest of department. Here the applicant does not appear to be responsible for delay. Even the enquiry stood concluded as back as on 08.01.1994 but the matter remain pending up to March, 1996. What transpired in between is still not known at least in black and white. It is not understandable why the matter was kept in cold storage for 2 years and thereafter the applicant has been served with a notice for fresh enquiry and when the applicant challenged that process, the Enquiry Officer told him that ongoing enquiry has nothing to do with the previous enquiry.
10. In view of the discussions made above, the O.A succeeds and is allowed. We quash the order dated 24.02.1997 communicated vide letter dated 16.06.1997 (Annexure- 3 to the O.A) and direct that the applicant will not be subjected to face the enquiry afresh on the same charges.
The applicant will be entitled for all consequential benefits.