Departmental enquiry directed to conclude preferably within six months, without expressing any view on merits.

The petitioners, who were associated with the land-acquisition proceedings for the Arpa-Bhainsajhar-Chakarbhata distributor canal construction project, challenged the District Level Committee’s inquiry report dated 24.02.2023, the consequential communication dated 11.07.2023, and the departmental charge-sheet/memo dated 12.08.2024.

They contended that they had been wrongly held responsible for alleged irregularities in the acquisition of land.

During hearing, however, the petitioners did not press the substantive reliefs seeking quashing of the inquiry report and departmental proceedings.

Instead, they requested a direction for expeditious completion of the departmental inquiry initiated pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 12.08.2024.

The State submitted that the departmental inquiry was pending and would be concluded in accordance with law within the period stipulated by the Court.

Whether the departmental inquiry initiated pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 12.08.2024 should be directed to be concluded within a stipulated period?

Whether the Court should adjudicate the petitioners’ challenges to the inquiry report, consequential communications, and charge-sheet at this stage?

The Court applied the principle that departmental disciplinary proceedings must be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law, while recognising that the Court may issue an appropriate time-bound direction for expeditious completion of a pending inquiry where such limited relief is sought and the State does not oppose it.

The Court also followed the restraint principle that, while issuing procedural directions, it should not express an opinion on the merits of the disciplinary allegations or influence the competent authority’s independent decision-making.

The petitioners expressly limited their claim to securing completion of the pending departmental inquiry and did not press the prayers challenging the inquiry report, communications, or charge-sheet.

Since the State acknowledged that the inquiry pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 12.08.2024 remained pending and agreed that it would be concluded in accordance with law within a stipulated period, the Court considered a time-bound direction appropriate.

At the same time, the Court declined to examine the merits of the allegations or the validity of the disciplinary materials, preserving the authorities’ obligation to take an independent decision in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the case and that the authorities were free to take an independent decision uninfluenced by the order.