AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
16 paragraphs · 266 wordsP. Sam Koshy, J
Challenge in this petition is to the order of suspension dated 19.07.2017 (Annexure P/1) as also the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
petitioner vide order dated 24.08.2016 (Annexure P/2).
The order Annexure P/2 was an order of appointment of Enquiry Officer contemplating Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner on 24.08.2016.
Thereafter, in the course of enquiry the services of the petitioner has been placed under suspension on 19.07.2017 (Annexure P/1).
The counsel for the petitioner submits that more than two years have passed from the date the enquiry officer was appointed but till date enquiry
has not been concluded and the petitioner has also been placed under suspension and thereby put to substantial inconvenience and difficulties. The
respondents have not been able to collect anything in the course of investigation and the petitioner is unnecessarily being put to hardship by the
respondents by not concluding the departmental enquiry.
The petitioner further submits that in the course of enquiry many of the witnesses infact have not supported the case of the department, rather have
proved it otherwise.
Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not intend to keep this petition pending. Accordingly, the respondents are
directed to ensure that Departmental Enquiry initiated against the petitioner is concluded at the earliest preferably within an outer limit of six months
from today. Meanwhile, the respondents would also consider whether there is any further necessity pending the Departmental Enquiry to keep the
services of the petitioner still under suspension.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
