Sanjay Kumar And Others vs Transport Department (GNCT Of Delhi)

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicants are working as Head Constables in the Vigilance Branch of Transport Department of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. They were placed under suspension on 30.10.2017, pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Later on, they were issued charge memo on 25.04.2018. The suspension was also being extended from time to time, as provided for under the relevant Rules.

The applicants contend that though an inquiry officer was appointed in July 2018, hardly there was any progress in the inquiry, and in his place another inquiry officer was appointed on 17.07.2019. They contend that even after the second inquiry officer was appointed, there was no progress, and in the process they are put to serious financial hardships and mental agony.

This OA is filed with a prayer to set aside the order of suspension as extended from time to time, and to direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings at the earliest. Reliance is placed upon various judgements on the subject.

We heard Ms. Meenakshi Sood, learned counsel for applicants and Ms. Esha Majumdar, learned counsel for respondents, at the stage of admission through video conferencing.

Though the order of suspension is challenged on several grounds, we do not intend to deal with the same at this stage. There is no illegality as such, in the order dated 30.10.2017. It is not the case of the applicants that any irregularity has taken place in the context of extending the suspension.

The applicants have also not challenged the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings nor do they plead any serious infraction in that behalf. What, however, becomes relevant is that the suspension was ordered way back on 30.07.2017, and hardly there was any progress in disciplinary proceedings.

Continued suspension of an employee would have its own impact not only on the concerned employee but also on the department. Longer the period of suspension, higher would be the the amount of subsistence allowance, and the department has to pay the substantial amount every month without extracting any work from the employee. Obviously, for this reason, the departments have issued guidelines from time to time, to the effect that in case the disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within a period of two years from the date of suspension, the feasibility of reinstating the employee shall be considered. Much, however, would depend upon the nature of charges and the need of the department. In the instant case, the suspension is continuing for more than two and half years. It is not a case in which any criminal case is filed against the applicants. The department may have its own problems in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, particularly in view of the recent development.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of the OA directing that -

(a) the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicants shall be concluded within a period of four months from today; and

(b) If, for any reason, the proceedings cannot be concluded, the respondents shall reinstate the applicants, if necessary, by assigning different kinds of duties to them.

There shall be no order as to costs.