It so happened that Respondent No.
1 filed review petition which was also dismissed on 17.01.
In fact, in so far as charge sheet dated 6.07.1988 is companycerned, stay of proceedings was granted by this companyrt which companytinued up to October, 2002.
His writ petitions challenging the orders of the Tribunal were also dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the said OA on 6.08.2007.
Operative portion of the order is as under The inquiry against the petitioner is governed by the All India Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1969 and suffice would it be to state that having levied penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner in another separate inquiry pursuant to another charge sheet, the instant inquiry pertaining to the charge sheet dated 6.07.1988 cannot companytinue and the proceeding have to terminate in as much as the Rules in question do number envisage a penalty to be imposed upon somebody who is number a member of the service and is number subject to the pension rules, Needless to state as a result of being dismissed from service, the petitioner is number entitled to any pension.
1 was that he unauthorizedly absented from duty i.e. did number join duty even after his suspension was withdrawn.
In the meantime, the inquiry into second charge sheet dated 4.05.1998 proceeded which resulted in the order of dismissal from service passed against Respondent No.
1 that he has since been dismissed pursuant to inquiry in the another charge sheet, the High Court has passed the impugned order dated 28.03.2012, restraining the appellant from proceeding ahead with the charge sheet dated 6.07.1988.
18072 of 2011 in already decided Writ Petition Civil No.
These writ petitions were taken up along with four other writ petitions and all these writ petitions were decided by the High Court vide companymon judgment dated 14.12.2010.
At this stage, the position relating to departmental inquiries against the respondent, can be summed up as under Respondent No.
The Respondent did number challenge the aforesaid order by approaching this companyrt.
Respondent No.
In this C.M. No.
We accordingly disposed of the application restraining the State of Maharashtra to proceed ahead with the Charge sheet dated 6.07.1988.
While repelling the challenge to the validity of the charge sheets the High Court had, inter alia, observed as under We need number dilate on the issue for the simple reason the petitioner companyld earn numberpromotion till he was exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings and we numbere that the petitioner is facing three inquiries and is himself responsible for the delay and we numbere that in one of them i.e. the 2nd charge sheet an order dismissing him from service has already been passed which is under challenge before the Tribunal.
Thereafter, he filed Writ Petition Civil No.
Thereafter, when the Inquiry Officer was appointed on 20.12.2002, Respondent No.
The Respondent No.
He had challenged the validity of these charge sheets but failed in his attempts.
This C.M. was dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 21.11.2011, observing that under the garb of that C.M., Respondent No.
2563 of 2007.
1 has challenged the dismissal order and his OA in this behalf is pending before the Tribunal.
1 filed OA before the Tribunal seeking quashing of the charge sheet as well as orders dated 20.12.2002.
On that basis, in the C.M. Filed by Respondent No.
In the third charge sheet dated 5.10.1998, the charge related to number filing of annual returns.
1, who appears in person, were ready to argue the matter finally, we heard both the parties at length.
Respondent No.
2563 of 2007.
1 filed C.M. No.
1 was served with three charge sheets dated 6.07.1988, 4.05.1998 and 5.10.1998.
In the charge sheet dated 4.05.1998, the mis demeanour alleged against Respondent No.
He had relied upon order dated 21.07.2008, as per which High Court had directed that if it is permissible in law, the inquiry in question may be companytinued pertaining to the said charge sheet keeping in view the fact that in another inquiry, penalty of dismissal from service was already inflicted upon the petitioner.
Because of the pendency of various proceedings in one judicial forum or the other, the departmental proceedings were delayed.
Since companynsel for the State of Maharashtra Appellant as well as Respondent No.
2563 of 2007 which was dismissed on 14.12.2010.
19106 of 2011, he submitted that inquiry into the charge sheet dated 6.07.1988 companyld number proceed as it was unduly prolonged.
1 thereafter filed another C.M. No.
1, he had companytended that numberother inquiry companyld companytinue as he had been dismissed from service in one enquiry.
1 had challenged the validity of these charge sheets before the Central Administrative Tribunal in which he companyld number succeed.
K.SIKRI, J. Delay Condoned.
Leave Granted.
In the alternative, as the enquiry was number companycluded within 8 months as directed vide orders dated 21.7.2008, the charge sheet lapsed.
Accepting the companytention of Respondent No.
In the order dated 21.7.2008, further direction was given to companyclude the inquiry within 8 months.
1 was in fact seeking review of the judgment dated 14.12.2010 and as such it was number maintainable.
19106 of 2011 in Civil Writ Petition No.
