HC quashes charge sheet for 27-year delay in inquiry

New Delhi, July 24 (UNI) The Delhi High Court today quashed charge sheet against a retired MCD employee as the agency took 27 years to conduct an inquiry against him.

Taking serious view of the manner in which the MCD had functioned, Justice Kailash Ghambhir quashed the charge sheet against 82-year-old Balbir Singh, a retired MCD employee, accusing him of making certain irregularities in purchases of steel while working with the corporation and causing a loss of rupees 1,99,000 to it.

Singh had moved the Court to quash the charge sheet filed against him on the grounds that there was a delay of more than 20 years in conducting the inquiry against him.

''It is both, the brooding spirit of law and unbridled right of a deliquent employee that disciplinary proceedings against him conclude expeditiously and without delay. Unnecessary prolongation of disciplinary proceedings, without any fault of the employee,causes such employee lot of harrassment and mental agony besides monetary loss,'' the judge observed.

The court directed the MCD to release the post retirement benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from now along with an interest of 12 per cent per annum.

Counsel for the petitioner Ali Naqvi contented that the writ petition can be disposed off on the grounds of long delay on part of the MCD to initiate inquiry against the accused.

Charge sheet against Singh was filed on September 18, 1978 and the inquiry was entrusted to the CBI. Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries A R Malhotra, was appointed as the inquiry officer on March 17,1987. The accused was issued a notice on December 11,1998 to appear before the inquiry officer on January 21, 1999.

Mr Naqvi contented that there was a delay of 24 years (from 1974 till 1998) from the date of alleged irregularities committed by the accused and the date when he was asked to appear before an inquiry officer.

The counsel submited that even if the date on which the notice was served upon the accused is considered, it has taken the MCD 20 long years in directing his appearance before the inquiry officer.

Mr Naqvi stated that all vital evidence which could have formed a defence have been diminished and lost since then.

Singh retired from the MCD in 1984 and kept persuing the case but only got dates and the delay went on and on.

The counsel stated that the delay was mainly due to the process involved in nominating the inquiry officer.

Dismissing the argument of MCD lawyer S C Sharma, who contented that the delay was on part of the accused, the Court quashed the charge sheet and further proceedingds against the accused stating that no sufficient or plausible explaination was given by the MCD for the enormous delay in completing the inquiry against Singh.

UNI