IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7028 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP©No.11722 of 2007)

Union of India & Anr.                  … Appellants

Versus

H.R.Bangar ( IRS)                 … Respondent

O R D E R

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is directed against an order dated

6th of March, 2006 passed by a Division Bench

of  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  Haryana  at

Chandigarh  in  Civil  Writ  Petition  No.3541  of

2006 by which the Division Bench of the High

Court in its impugned order stated –“we see no

reason  whatsoever  to  interfere  in  the  well

reasoned order of the tribunal.” By the order of

the tribunal, the enquiry proceedings which was

initiated  was  closed  down  on  the  ground  of

1

inordinate  delay  in  completing  the  proceeding

which was affirmed by the aforesaid impugned

order of the High Court. From the order of the

tribunal,  it  is  evident  that  the  tribunal  had

directed the appellants to complete the enquiry

proceedings  initiated  against  the  respondent

within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of that order.

4. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the

parties and examined the orders of the tribunal

as well as of the High Court and the materials

on record. In our view, the High Court as well

as the tribunal was not justified in closing down

the enquiry proceedings against the respondent

for the simple reason that the proceedings were

initiated  only  in 2001  and the  High Court  as

well as the tribunal failed to appreciate that the

charges  against  the  respondent  were  very

serious,  i.e.  misappropriation  and  accepting

illegal  gratification  while  in  office.  In  Deputy

2

Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies,  Faizabad

vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey & Ors.  [1995 (3)

SCC 134], this court held that mere elapsing of

a  long  period  of  16  years  from  the  date  of

commencement  of  the  departmental  enquiry

was not a sufficient ground to close down the

proceeding, more so when the department alone

was not responsible for the delay. In view of the

nature of charges against the respondent which

was very serious and following the decision in

the  case  of  Deputy  Registrar,  Cooperative

Societies, Faizabad (supra), we are, therefore,

of the view that the impugned order should be

set  aside  and  direction  may  be  given  to  the

authorities  concerned to complete  the enquiry

proceeding within six months from the date of

communication  of  this  order  positively.

Accordingly,  we  direct  that  the  authorities

concerned  shall  complete  the  departmental

proceeding  initiated  against  the  respondent

3

within  six  months  from  the  date  of

communication  of  this  order  after  giving  an

opportunity of hearing to the parties.

5. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside

and  the  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  extent

indicated  above.  There  will  be  no  order  as  to

costs.    

           …………………….. J.     [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi;                   .……………… ……….J. November 17, 2008          [V.S.Sirpurkar]     

4