1. Heard Mr. Suthar, learned Advocate for petitioner.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief/s and directions:
"(B) Be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the illegal and arbitrary action on the part of concerned respondent authorities in initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet dated 9.3.2012 and be pleased to hold that it is not open on the part of the concerned respondent authorities to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner by issuing charge-sheet dated 9.3.2012 after unreasonable, unexplained and inordinate delay of 16 years in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case;"
3. It is noticed from the record and also from the relief prayed for by the petitioner as well as from the submissions vehemently made by learned counsel for the petitioner that suddenly the respondents have issued charge-sheet in connection with the incident which allegedly occurred almost 16 years before the date of charge-sheet. Differently put, for alleged incident charge-sheet has been issued after 16 years and the respondent authorities want to prosecute the charge-sheet further.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that the action of proposing to initiate departmental proceedings after inordinate delay of 16 years is impermissible in law. The impugned charge-sheet is vitiated by delay. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner also relied on decision by Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh (AIR 1990 SC 1308).
5. Though there appears to be substance in what is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the restraint which Court exercises while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not inclined to entertain present petition at this stage, i.e. at the stage of charge-sheet when petitioner is expected to file the reply/explanation.
6. It is noticed that the petitioner has approached the Court without submitting his reply to the charge-sheet and without even requesting the competent authority to drop the proceedings in light of the decision by the Apex Court and in view of the fact that the proceedings, as claimed by the petitioner, are initiated after delay of almost 16 years since the date of alleged incident.
7. It is only in view of the said reason that the Court is not inclined to entertain present petition at this stage and would relegate the petitioner to the competent authority so as to file appropriate reply and request the authority to take appropriate decision on the reply wherein the petitioner can raise contentions on ground of inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings. Needless to state that when such application is made, the competent authority will forthwith take appropriate decision in view of the facts of the case and also in light of the legal position explained and settled by the decision of the Apex Court and this Court.
8. For the foregoing reason present petition is not entertained at this stage.
9. It is clarified that the Court has not examined the charges and/or petition on merits and only on the aforesaid limited ground the petition is not entertained at this stage.
10. It is also clarified that if at all the request/representation by the petitioner is not duly considered by the competent authority within reasonable time or if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority after submission of reply/representation, it would be open to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings as may be advised.
11. With the aforesaid clarification, petition is disposed of.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) jani Top