Suresh Chandra Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Ankurit Raj David, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

The present case illustrates the apathy and indifference exhibited by Government officials to the plight of other employees. For allegations (undoubtedly grave and serious) which relate to the period 1993-94, an inquiry was caused into the matter, and the petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 31.07.1996. Thereafter, the inquiry was completed and an inquiry report was submitted in the year 1997.

Though the petitioner was finally allotted to the State of Uttarakhand, an order of dismissal was passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 04.03.2002, questioning which the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). Initially the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in its order in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 619 of 2002 dated 23.02.2006, granted stay, while making it clear that the petitioner would continue to remain under suspension as per the order dated 31.07.1996. Following the said interim order, the Government of Uttarakhand passed an order on 07.09.2006 directing that the petitioner shall continue to remain under suspension. The petitioner retired from service on 29.02.2008. Thereafter WPSB No. 619 of 2002 was disposed of, by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), by its order dated 07.12.2010 holding that the Government of Uttar Pradesh lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of punishment. The said order of punishment was quashed, leaving it open to the State of Uttaranchal to restart disciplinary proceedings from the stage it was on the date of reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Even though several years elapsed, after the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 07.12.2010, neither was disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, nor was he paid his regular pension. Interim pension was granted to the petitioner from 17.04.2009. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, would now state that the interim pension, being paid to the petitioner, is in the revised scales of pay.

In his report, the Inquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of two charges and not guilty of two others. He did not record any finding on the remaining two charges on the ground that the matter was under investigation by the CBI. From the affidavit now filed by the first respondent, it does appear that, after completion of investigation, the CBI has filed a charge-sheet before the Special Court at Lucknow, and the matter is pending trial. The blame for the inordinate delay, in completion of the disciplinary inquiry, is placed on the records not being made available by the Government of Uttar Pradesh which the Director, who is present in person today, states were received only in December, 2018. However, no explanation is forthcoming as to why no action was taken even thereafter.

While we would have directed disciplinary action to be taken against the errant officials for their complete disregard to the plight of the petitioner, a reading of the charge-sheet does indicate that one of the charges, which the inquiry officer has held proved against the petitioner, is grave and serious and relates to the irregularities in making purchases of R1,22,52,403.45/-.

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel, would further state that, during the pendency of this Writ Petition, a copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner calling for his objections thereto, and a copy of the said letter was served on the petitioner on 13.07.2019.

If that be so, suffice it to dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit his objections to the inquiry report within one month from today. The respondents shall at the earliest and, in any event, not later than one month from the date of the petitioner's reply to the inquiry report, pass a final order and communicate the same to the petitioner. In case the disciplinary authority is satisfied that the petitioner's pension should be released, then necessary orders shall be passed in this regard within two weeks from the date the disciplinary authority passes a final order.

Needless to state that failure on the part of the respondents, to adhere to the timelines indicated hereinabove, may require disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against the errant officials for the inordinate delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.