Judgment:
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. Prayer in this writ application has been made for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to resume his duties immediately and also to pay the arrears of salary on and from April, 1997 till date and also to pay the current salary to the petitioner.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was employed under the respondents and was assigned the duties at the Head Quarters of B.C.C.L. where lie was working as an Accounts Assistant in the Finance Department.
On the ground of certain allegations of misconduct in performance of duty, the petitioner was placed under suspension in November, 1975 and after serving him with the formal charge sheet, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Subsequently, pursuant to an order of Kolkata High Court, where the petitioner had preferred the writ application, he was allowed to resume his duty and thereafter he joined on 7.5.1993. However, even after the petitioner was allowed to resume duty, he was again put under suspension in the year 1995 on the ground that he again absented from duty. However, he was allowed to resume duly in' May, 1996. Although he was attending his duties, but surprisingly he was served with another order along with charge sheet intimating that a departmental proceeding has been initiated against him on the ground of absenting from duty from April, 1997.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry was concluded in the year 2000 but the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner two years later in the year 2002 and in response to which he had submitted his replies but thereafter the respondents have not taken any steps in the matter and have not been allowing the petitioner to resume his duty either.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein specific stand has been taken that even though the petitioner was allowed to resume his duty in the year 1953, he has demonstrated a persistent habit of absenting from duty and when such conduct was repeatedly shown by him, ultimately in the year 1997 a departmental proceeding) was initiated after serving him with the charge-sheet.
5. Shri A.K. Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the position as on date is that tire petitioner has neither been suspended nor has his services been terminated and yet he is not appearing before the respondents to resume his duty.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner interjects by stating that though the petitioner has been approaching; the respondents to allow him to resume duty but he has been refused.
7. From the facts stated, it appears that the inquiry which was initiated against the petitioner and concluded in the velar 2000 and the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner in the year 2002 against which he has submitted his show cause replies, yet for reasons unexplained, the matter has been left suspended at that stage without any final decision being 'taken by the respondents. If the contention of the respondents is that notwithstanding the inquiry and the further steps which may be taken in regard to the petitioner on the basis of the inquiry report, the petitioner could have resumed Ms duties, then they might as well allow the petitioner forthwith to resume his duties.
8. However, considering the fact that the inquiry is still inconclusive in as much as the report of the inquiry is yet to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the respondents are directed to conclude the proceeding within three months from the date of this order and intimate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this court/appropriate -forum for relief, in case of any further grievance, which he may have.
With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.