Full Judgment
MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. The only ground urged in this writ petition for setting aside of the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner is the ground of delay. What is urged by the petitioner is that petitioner had applied for VRS vide letter dated 20.10.2006, and after the expiry of the period specified in the application, it is averred on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is deemed to have got voluntary retirement. It is argued that departmental proceedings thus could not be initiated after about three years of deemed acceptance.
2. On behalf of the respondent no.1, it is pleaded that there cannot be automatic voluntary retirement and an application for VRS has to be accepted under the rules.
3. When asked to point out any provision as to how there is automatic voluntary retirement on mere submission of the application by the petitioner, counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only to the delay in initiating the departmental proceedings. It may be noted that departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for abandoning of the services. Unless there is lack of jurisdiction or similar other issue, departmental proceedings cannot be scuttled because all defences of fact and law have to be taken in the enquiry proceedings.
4. I may note that during the pendency of the petition enquiry proceedings have been completed. The petitioner has participated in the same and a report has now been made by the Enquiry Officer which has been filed in a sealed cover to this Court. What is the report of the enquiry officer is not known and in any case, the report of the enquiry officer is not final inasmuch as, the report of the enquiry officer has to be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, and that too after giving the petitioner a show cause notice and also personal hearing. Therefore, today, there is no prejudice to the petitioner by any order which has been passed against the petitioner.
5. In view of the above, it is directed that the report of the enquiry officer which has been filed in this Court in a sealed cover be returned back to the respondent no.1, and the respondent no.1 on the basis of this enquiry report, and if the same is against the petitioner, will serve the petitioner with a show cause notice and thereafter give the petitioner a hearing before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter will pass an order in accordance with law.
6. Since a mere delay in initiation of proceedings in the facts of this case is not a ground for quashing of the departmental proceedings, therefore, on whatever grounds the petitioner has to challenge the report of the enquiry officer, including the ground of any delay, will have to be urged by the petitioner in the departmental proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority at the first stage.
7. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
8. The interim order dated 28.10.2010 is vacated. The enquiry report in sealed cover be given back to the respondent no.1 through counsel by the Registry of this Court within a period of one week. MARCH 18 2013 ib W.P(C) 7287/2010.