AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Lodh, J
Heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. GA appearing for the applicants. Also heard Mr. Anjan Kanti Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-writ petitioner.
This Court vide order dated 21.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 39 of 2022 had directed the respondents to complete the departmental proceeding drawn against the petitioner within a period of 4 (four) months.
Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. GA has prayed for extension of time to complete the disciplinary proceeding. This Court has asked Mr. Sarma, learned Addl. GA, whether there was any lapse on the part of the petitioner in the progress of the disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Sarma has fairly submitted that there was no lapse on behalf of the petitioner, but, Inquiry Officer could not complete the proceeding within the stipulated period of time.
In my opinion, since there was no lapse on behalf of the petitioner to complete the proceeding within the stipulated period of time and he was wholly co-operating in the process of completing the proceeding, it would not be a fit case to extend further time to complete the proceeding.
If the petition for extension of time is allowed, in my considered view, that will give a bad message to the Inquiring Authorities since they may think that they may flout the order of the court and seek for extension of time which would be allowed. This court does not want to give such impression to the Inquiring Authorities.
In the light of the above, I find no merit in the application for extension of time. The interlocutory application, accordingly, stands dismissed.