Kamalesh Deka v. The State of Assam and 3 Ors

ORDER

23.10.2024 Heard Mr. P. K. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, PWD appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, office of the Accountant General (A & E), Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5. Mr. C. K. S. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam is present on behalf of respondent No.3.

¶2The petitioner herein has retired from service as Executive Engineer under the Public Works Department on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.09.2017. As per the rules, the petitioner is entitled to receive pension. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that due to the pendency of the departmental proceeding initiated against him vide show cause notice dated 25.09.2018, the pension of the petitioner has not been settled till today.

¶3By referring to a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another reported in (2015) 16 SCC 415 Mr. Munir has argued that a departmental proceeding cannot be kept pending indefinitely so as to deny pensionary benefit to a retired Page No.# 3/4 Government employee. He submits that if it is not possible for the employer to conclude the departmental enquiry within a time-frame then the same is liable to be quashed.

¶4The respondents have not filed any affidavit in this case. However, from the submissions made by Ms. S. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, it is apparent that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide notice dated 25.09.2018 is yet to be concluded. The learned departmental counsel, however, could not apprise this Court as to the reason for delay of nearly 6 years in concluding the departmental enquiry.

¶5Be that as it may, law is well settled that a departmental proceeding/enquiry initiated against a delinquent employee cannot be kept pending indefinitely. In the case of Prem Nath Bali (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that every employer should make a sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental proceeding within a reasonable time and where it is not possible to conclude the enquiry due to certain unavoidable causes, then effort should be made to conclude the same within a reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and nature of the enquiry but the same should not be more than one year.

¶6In this case, as has been observed herein above, no reason is discernible to indicate as to why the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner way back in the year 2018 is yet to be concluded. We find that on

09.01.2024 the respondent No.3 had issued a communication to the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Public Works Department, inter-alia indicating that the departmental proceeding initiated against some of the employees including the writ petitioner has been fixed for preliminary hearing Page No.# 4/4 on 12.02.2024. However, what transpires thereafter is not available on record nor is the learned departmental counsel in a position to apprise this Court in that regard. At the same time, it is established that due to pendency of the aforesaid departmental proceeding the pension of the petitioner has not been settled till today.

¶7Situated thus and by balancing the equities, this writ petition is hereby disposed of by granting 60 (sixty) days time, with effect from today, to the departmental authorities to conclude the enquiry proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner. If for any reason the departmental enquiry is not concluded within the aforesaid time-frame, then the authorities shall be duty bound to process the claim of the petitioner for grant of provisional pension in accordance with law, within a further period of 60 days thereafter. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010162282024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4095/2024o KAMALESHoDEKAo S/O-oLATEoARABINDAoDEKA,o R/O-oH.NO-3,o F.AoROAD,oKUMARPARA,o P.S-oBHARALUMUKH,oDIST-oKAMRUPo(M),oASSAM VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo3oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSPECIALoSECRETARYoTOoTHEo GOVERNMENToOFoASSAM,oPUBLICoWORKSo(ROADS)oDEPARTMENT,o oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI,oASSAM.oPIN-o781006 2:THEoUNDERoSECRETARY oTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOFoASSAM oPUBLICoWORKSo(ROADS)oDEPARTMENT o oDISPUR oGUWAHATI oASSAM.oPIN-o781006 3:THEoSTATEoENQUIRYoOFFICERo oASSAM oASSAMoSECRETARIATo(CIVIL) o oDISPUR oGUWAHATI oASSAM.oPIN-o781006 4:THEoACCOUNTANToGENERAL oBELTOLA oMAIDAMGAON Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI PIN-781029 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T K MISRA, MR. A. GAYAN,MR. P K MUNIR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, PWD, GA, ASSAM,SC, AG (A AND E) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM