ORDER
M. Ramachandran, Vice Chairman (J)
1. The applicant herein had, during May, 2006 submitted this application, incorporating a prayer that Office Memorandum dated 20.6.1997 issued to him is to be quashed, including the further proceedings that might have been contemplated. Application also included a prayer that he was entitled to be extended the benefits, which normally might have come to him, and which stands denied because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, evidenced by the Office Memorandum, referred to earlier (Annexure A-1).
2. Interim orders have been passed on 12.7.2006, whereby the respondents had been restrained from passing final orders in the pending disciplinary proceedings. Practically, the defence of the respondents had been struck off because they failed to come up with the counter statement and the matter was heard at length. Of course, the Department had been permitted to address us citing from the files, which they were presumed to be having.
3. Indeed, a dismal picture, has become evident. The Department appears to be a casualty. But, however, taking notice of the circumstances, in which the applicant has been placed, we do feel that relief cannot be denied to him, nevertheless we may state our reasons for coming to our conclusion as above, in the process side lining the accusations and counter allegation, which had come to be voiced.
4. The applicant is working as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the CPWD attached to the Delhi Central Circle-I. The Superintending Engineer (Civil) and the Chief Engineer, respectively are second and third respondents herein; Chief Engineer has been impleaded as the then Inquiry Officer, who had been directed to examine the allegations that were raised against the applicant by Annexure A-1 memorandum. It had been proposed by the competent authority to proceed against the applicant in respect of certain allegations set out in the Annexure to the Memorandum of Charges. He had allegedly caused loss of five Measurement Books in respect of running works and completed works. They were the principal and master documents, for preparation of bills, in respect of the contract works and it had been alleged that by his negligence and irregularities, unnecessary hindrance has been caused to the work of the Department. Another allegation against the applicant was that in pursuance of transfer order issued to him, he had refused to hand over charge to his successor and thereby violated the Code of Conduct, prescribed for Government employees.
5. It is evident that due formalities have been complied with, and an inquiry had been held and we notice that documents were produced and two witnesses from prosecution have also been examined. The Inquiry Officer directed parties to submit their respective written briefs on or before 11.12.1998. The Department submitted its written brief on 31.12.1998 and the applicant on 11.1.1999. The applicant alleges that there was silence thereafter, and although he had brought the attention of the respondents to his predicament by representations dated 19.8.2002 and 19.5.2006, respondents had not awaken from the slumber. He further submits that his ACP entitlements and consideration by DPC for promotions, stood jeopardized because of the long pendency of disciplinary proceedings, and this was totally arbitrary and interfered with his rights as a Government servant. The impasse could have been broken only by the intervention of this Tribunal.
6. Notice has been issued to the respondents, and as referred to earlier, they had not come up with the counter statement in spite of opportunities being offered to them lingering over a period of eight months. The matter was taken up for final hearing in the aforesaid background. It is fervently conceded that they do not possess any files worth the name for arranging defence.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicant referred to two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely, State of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishan as well as P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board (2005 (6) SCC 636). He submits that in the matter of concluding an inquiry against the departmental officers, on procedure and conduct although there are no pre- fabricated principles, the court has to take notice of the unexplained delay in finalizing of proceedings. The prejudice caused to a Government servant by mere pendency of the disciplinary proceedings was too grave and inappropriate. The court will be justified in quashing the proceedings when it is found that arbitrariness is present. The later decision had taken notice of Radhakrishan’s case (supra) and had endorsed the view.
8. We are reasonably certain that 8 years delay, which has occurred in this case, therefore, brings it within the purview of the observations that have been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and indeed there has been hardship on the employee. There is no specific allegation that the inquiry proceedings were delayed because of his contribution. In fact, Annexures A-6 and A-7 show otherwise, viz. that it was a case where the employee was reminding the Department of their responsibility but they could not come to any decision. Of course, learned standing counsel for the Department submits that the missing of the records and the attitude of the employee and his possible involvement is the real cause of delay. But the allegation is too far fetched.
9. During the pendency of the proceedings, the employee had been given a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer, which indicates that he had been found guilty. However, these submissions have no acceptability whatsoever. The Inquiry Officer, apparently had been required to submit a report during February, 2007, because of the filing of O.A., as the earlier reports said to have been submitted by him as well as documents were missing from the office. The Inquiry Officer had obliged the Department by submitting a fresh report, and he submits that he had prepared the report on the basis of the averments in the Original Application filed before this Tribunal. In fact, documents annexed to the application have been relied on for coming to a finding. This cannot be considered as a credible report by the Inquiry Officer. The evidence collected in the inquiry apparently has been irrevocably lost and there is nothing to indicate that the allegations were substantiated with legal acceptable materials. It is also not disclosed as to what was the reason in not taking action against the officers, who had been negligent, in the matter whereby confidential documents were lost and the disciplinary proceedings, therefore, could not be completed. We have to observe that the matter has been dealt with in a most casual manner by the officer concerned. For this reason, we direct that a copy of the judgment is to be directly addressed to the Ministry, for them to know the manner in which the affairs of the Department were being carried out.
10. We find that there has neither been any material to hold that any proper inquiry has been held against the applicant nor is there any effort to follow up the charge-sheet with a proper inquiry. There was no suspension order, and the applicant was continuing throughout as an officer although his career had been affected adversely because of the present disciplinary proceedings. We will, therefore, be justified in ordering that Annexure A-1 Memorandum should not stand in the way of the applicant in his career prospects any more even though there might have been any reasonable grounds for issuing such communication at one point of time. We are constrained to hold that applicant should get the benefits of such a finding and observation, principally because of the default of the administration.
11. In consequence we hold as following:
It should be deemed that at no point of time the applicant was to suffer from any consequences, arising out of Annexure A-1;
The disciplinary proceedings would stand completely abated;
The benefit of ACP is to be conferred on him as he may be entitled to;
The applicant will also be entitled to promotion, which would have normally accrued to him as there is no reason to blot his career, if it was solely because of Annexure A-1 and resultant proceedings.
12. We restrain ourselves from imposing any cost. Consequential orders and proceedings in consonance with the above directions are to be issued by the concerned respondents within two months from this date.