Raj Narain Shukla vs State of U.P. and Others

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Mr. A.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the records.

The writ petition has been filed for a suitable order or direction to the opposite parties to conclude the disciplinary proceedings arising out of the charge-sheet dated 20.1.1992 within a reasonable time in terms of the judgment and order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act), Lucknow and thereafter pass appropriate orders with regard to the post retirement benefits of the Petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has retired from the post of Naib-Tehsildar on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.1999. While in service the Petitioner was given a charge-sheet dated 20.1.1992 on the charges for which a criminal case was lodged against the Petitioner. The Petitioner feeling aggrieved had challenged the said charge-sheet by filing W.P. No. 2582 (SS) of 1992 in which by order dated 27.4.1992 the disciplinary proceedings were stayed. Subsequently, by judgment and order dated 28.11.2003 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 1991, the Petitioner was acquitted from the charges on merit. It was thereafter that the Petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition and by order dated 23.8.2004 the W.P. No. 2582 (SS) of 1992 was dismissed as withdrawn.

It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that by letter dated 27.7.2010 the Petitioner was called to submit reply to the charge-sheet and the Petitioner had submitted his reply on 31.7.2010. However, since then the disciplinary proceedings are pending and no decision has been taken, so far.

The learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that the disciplinary proceedings are pending and the Petitioner has submitted his reply but the enquiry officer has to submit the enquiry report before the competent authority.

It is further submitted that the post retirement benefits of the Petitioner has also not been decided in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.

Since the Petitioner has retired in the year 1999 and the said disciplinary proceedings are said to be pending for a long time since 1992, therefore, it would be appropriate that a suitable directions be issued for conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that the enquiry officer shall conclude the enquiry proceedings in accordance with law and submit enquiry report before the competent authority, expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and the competent authority shall take a decision in accordance with law, expeditiously, say within a period of one and half months, thereafter.

After completion of the enquiry proceedings on the basis of final decision so taken the opposite parties shall decide the payment of pensionery benefits of the Petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously, say within a period of one month, thereafter.

The entitlement of the Petitioner with respect to the interest on delay on payment of the post retirement benefits would depend on the decision so taken by the competent authority.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of finally.