Rajeev Kumar Saxena vs Union Of India And Others

Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)

Shri S.K. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shree Prakash Rai, and Shri Praveen Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has received instructions from the department and accordingly the status of the enquiry is that the departmental witnesses have already been examined. Now the enquiry is at the stage of examination of defence witnesses.

The limited challenge in this original application is a communication issued by the enquiry officer to the witnesses to appear before him on 06.04.2022 for the purpose of enquiry into the charges in disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was a specific direction passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No.16949 of 2021 that the enquiry be completed within a period of three months. Since the period of 3 months has since lapsed, the date of the order being 27.11.2021 the enquiry officer should be now restrained from carrying on with the enquiry since it would go against the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand point out that the direction of the Hon’ble High Court was not binding upon the respondents. Moreover, since the enquiry is already in progress, and no adverse orders have been passed against the applicant so far there is no cause for him to agitate this matter.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant documents on record specifically the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the aforesaid mentioned writ petition.

While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition the Hon’ble High Court had passed the following directions:-

“For the reasons aforequoted, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. It is directed that the respondents shall conclude the disciplinary proceeding very expeditiously, preferably within three months, in accordance with law.”

A bare reading of it shows that the Hon’ble High Court had not given a categorical direction that the enquiry be completed within three months. The term used by the Hon’ble High court was “expeditiously preferably within three months”. Since the enquiry is already in progress, we find no reason to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the present original application is dismissed. However, the applicant will be at liberty to seek appropriate relief in case, he is aggrieved by adverse order in an appropriate forum in accordance with law. No order as to costs.