JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J.
1. The prayer made in the present writ petition is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the suspension order dated 24.2.2007 passed by the Chairman, Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur and for quashing of the charge sheet dated 22.5.2007. A further prayer for quashing of transfer order dated 14.2.2007 and 21.2.2007 of the petitioner has also been made.
2. According to petitioner his father was a Driver with the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur. He died on 24.2.2005 in harness and, therefore, the petitioner and his two brothers, all of whom are also in service of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur as Drivers claimed post death dues of their father. The said post death dues of their father were not paid and the petitioner and his brothers were put to harassment by the Clerk Subhash Chandra Srivastava. On the complaint of the petitioner to the Anti Corruption Department a trap was laid against the aforesaid Clerk Subhash Chandra Srivastava and he fell in the trap. A first information report was lodged against him on 14.2.2007 and he was also arrested. The impugned orders and the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner is the result of the said animosity and it is at his behest that the petitioner is being victimised.
3. Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri C.K. Parekh, learned Counsel appearing for the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mirzapur and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.
Sri Parekh has raised a preliminary objection that against the order of suspension the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division. The petitioner has already appealed against the same by filing a representation dated 29.5.2007.
4. In reply to the above preliminary objection, Sri Agarwal has submitted that no such appeal has been filed by the petitioner and the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy as against the charge sheet the petitioner has no alternative remedy and basically the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to the charge sheet. In support of his contention he has also produced the question-answer dated 20.2.2008 given to the petitioner from the office of the Commissioner, where in reply to the petitioner's query as to whether any appeal has been preferred by him against the suspension order dated 24.2.2007 the reply has been given in negative.
5. In view of the aforesaid and the prayers made in the writ petition for the quashing of the charge sheet and transfer orders as well, I consider it appropriate to proceed on merits and to decide the matter finally. Counsel for the parties also accepted the proposal and, as such, advanced arguments on merits also.
6. The only ground of attack to the charge sheet, as raised by Sri Agarwal, is on the basis of Rule 6(2)(a) of the U.P. Municipal Service (Enquiry, Punishment, Termination of Service) Rules, 1960 to the effect that the charge sheet was not submitted within 15 days. The said Rule stipulates for submission of the charge sheet "as far as possible within 15 days of the completion of the investigation." In reply to the above submission Sri Parekh has submitted that the time of 15 days stipulated for submitting the charge sheet is not absolute and a little delay in submission of the charge sheet would not vitiate the same. On the basis of the charge-sheet an enquiry report has already been submitted on 20.9.2007. However, final decision could not be taken as on 5.2.2008 an additional charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner and as soon as the petitioner replies to the same, on completion of the enquiry with regard to the additional charge-sheet, a final decision would be taken.
7. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for petitioner relied on , Rani v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and submitted that the words "as far as possible" means that the charges should be drawn in all probabilities within the time schedule prescribed unless otherwise impossible and since there is no explanation that it was impossible to frame charges within the above time, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed.
8. The words "as far as possible" gives sufficient discretion to the authorities to frame the charges within the period of 15 days from the completion of the investigation or within a reasonable time thereafter. The possibility of furnishing the charge sheet after stipulated period of 15 days is not completely ruled out. It is only a matter of procedure so that the enquiry may not be delayed and is completed at the earliest. The non submission of the charge-sheet or framing of the charges within the time so stipulated is merely an irregularity and cannot be held to be an illegality. A distinction has to be drawn between irregular action and illegal action. Illegal actions are actions which are not legal and sustainable under law, whereas irregularity denotes discrepancy in following the procedure, which is of a curable nature and when cured would not be fatal so as to vitiate the entire action.
9. The submission that the counter affidavit does not explain the delay in submitting the charge sheet and, therefore, the time schedule prescribed should have been adhered to is not acceptable. The petitioner in the writ petition has nowhere contended as to when the investigation in the matter was completed. The limitation for submitting the charge-sheet starts from the date of completion of the investigation. In the absence of starting point of limitation, the submission of the charge sheet on 12.5.2007 cannot be said to be beyond time.
10. It is an acknowledged legal principle that the order of suspension is not a punishment and, therefore, should not be ordinarily interfered with by the Courts unless the same has been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction or unless it is said to be vitiated by malafidss. None of these ground exist in the present case to enable the courts to interfere with the order of suspension.
11. As far as the transfer orders are concerned, the petitioner has not been moved out of the town. He has only been shifted from one section of the Nagar Palika to another. In fact, it is said that by such shifting the petitioner has been deputed to drive a tractor instead of Jeep or any such other vehicle. Such a submission is not tenable and makes no difference as the petitioner is presently under suspension and is not being compelled to drive a tractor. Therefore, interference with the order of transfer at this juncture, pending a departmental inquiry is not at all justified.
12. The enquiry against the petitioner has already been completed in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 2.5.2007, which has been impugned, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the same. However, as it has been stated that the petitioner is facing additional charges, it is in the interest of justice that the enquiry in respect of the said additional charges be also completed and a final decision in the matter be taken as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today, subject to the petitioner's submitting reply to the additional charges dated 5.2.2008 and cooperating with the enquiry.
13. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.