Devinder Gupta, J. (Oral) - (1.). On 19th April, 1993 the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions against respondents 1 & 2 not to proceed with the inquiry which was initiated through letter dated 16.3.1993 into the charges levelled against the petitioner through memo dated 28.8.1992.
(2.). The main and primary grounds on which the petitioner sought the reliefs are the inordinate delay of eight years in issuing charge sheet, alleging that while incident had taken place in August 1985, the first letter was received by the petitioner inquiring about the alleged incident on 16.4.1990 and calling upon him to reply to certain queries to which the petitioner submitted his reply in June, 1990. Respondents slept over the matter for another 2 and 1/4th years and issued charge sheet only on 28.8.1992. Due to inordinate delay defence of the petitioner was likely to be prejudiced, on account of retirement of many officials from service and it would be unfair to permit the departmental inquiry to be proceeded with at a belated stage.. It will be highly unfair to allow stall charges to be raked up after a long lapse of time. Considerable delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings on the alleged irregularities will also be a circumstance leading to drawing of an inference that the respondents must be deemed to have dropped the inquiry proceedings. In addition it is alleged that the circumstances on record clearly establish that it was the General Manager, B.M. Puri who was responsible for the alleged irregularities and the reason for delay in initiating inquiry was malafide, only to allow said B.M. Puri and others to retire and then to victimise the petitioner alone.
(3.). On 21.4.1993 notice was directed to be issued to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. On 17.5.1993 interim order was passed that the inquiry officer may not give final report till further directions. This order was modified on 20.3.1995, when it was directed that the inquiry may proceed against the delinquent officials but final order shall not be made till further orders. On the same day it was observed that joint disciplinary proceedings were being held against the petitioner and two other officers, namely, O.P. Bhalla and P.K. Sabharwal. Since the other two persons were also likely to be affected, petitioner was directed to implead them as respondents. This is how the said respondents are also parties to this petition.