AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the opposite party.
The petitioner was working as a Sectional Supervisor in the Orissa Forest Development Corporation, in short, ''Corporation'' and was posted at
Choudwar Saw Mill. On the basis of certain allegations, he was put under suspension with effect from 4.6.1980. After suspending him, no action
was taken by the authorities of the Corporation till 23.11.1983, when charge-sheet was framed and served upon the petitioner alleging commission
of misconduct. After receiving charge-sheet, the petitioner approached the authorities and requested them to recall the suspension order and permit
him to discharge his duties. Considering the said application, the suspension order was recalled and the petitioner was permitted to join at
Rairakhol. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his show cause denying all the allegations levelled against him. Even after receipt of the show cause, no
action was taken for initiation of departmental proceeding nor any information was given to the petitioner till 8.8.1997, when an enquiry officer was
appointed. In the meanwhile, on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner had retired from service with effect from 28.2.1997. Being
aggrieved by the inaction of the opposite party-Corporation, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 8.8.1997
(Annexure-6) appointing an Enquiry Officer after he retired from service. It is submitted that as the process of enquiry has not commenced and as
charges relate back to the year 1980. It is a fit case where the entire proceeding should be quashed.
In support of such submission, the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sukadev Behera Vs. M.D., OFDC Ltd., and
the decision of the apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, OSFC and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 184 and submitted that
following the ratio of the said case, the entire proceeding may be quashed.
Fact remains, allegations were levelled against the petitioner way back in the year 1980. Charge-sheet was submitted three years after, i.e., in
the year 1983. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., in February, 1997. Thereafter, on 8.8.1997 an
Enquiry Officer was appointed with a direction to proceed with the case.
In the case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) the Supreme Court while considering similar issue the Supreme Court observed that long delay in framing
charge and/or pending enquiry/proceeding, is not justified and the proceeding should be quashed on that ground alone.
In the case in hand, as has been stated earlier, the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 28.2.1997.
Considering all the facts and circumstances and the fact that thirty years have passed in the meanwhile from the date of suspension, during which
no action was taken for contemplating the departmental proceeding, this Court feels that the authorities have not acted with due diligence and had
adopted dilly dally tactics in framing charges and/or initiating the proceeding by appointing an Enquiry Officer and as such, this is a fit case where
ends of justice and equity will be better served if the proceeding initiated against the petitioner who has retired from service since 1997 on attaining
the age of superannuation should be quashed and we direct accordingly.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ application is allowed.