[2025:RJ-JP:9142] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18659/2024 Gopal Singh S/o Shri Man Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o F-276, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar (Rajasthan), Retired From The Post Of Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Choroti Pahar, Ramgarh, District Alwar ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Edu- cation Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secre- tariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 3. The Chief District Education Officer, Alwar. 4. The District Education Officer, Secondary, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Pareek for Mr. DC Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anjum Praveen Salawat for Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/03/2025 1. A very limited prayer has been made in this petition for issuing directions to the respondents to conclude the inquiry pending against the petitioner in pursuance of the charge- sheet dated 26.08.2020. 2. It is settled proposition of law that the Disciplinary Au- thority is supposed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously, as early as possible, but in the instant case, the proceedings are pending against the petitioner since last [2025:RJ-JP:9142] (2 of 3) [CW-18659/2024] more than four years and the same have not been concluded for the reasons best known to the authority concerned. 2. In the case of Prem Nath Bali Vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Ors., reported in AIR 2016 SC 101, the Hon’ble Apex Court has emphasized that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imper- ative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee. 3. As a matter of experience, this Court notice that after completion of the inquiry, the issue involved therein does not come to an end because if the findings of the inquiry proceed- ings have gone against the delinquent employee, he invari- ably pursues the issue in Court to ventilate his grievance, which again consumes time for its final conclusion. 4. Keeping these factors in mind, this Court is of the consid- ered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent em- ployee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such pro- ceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes aris- ing in the proceedings within the time frame then efforts [2025:RJ-JP:9142] (3 of 3) [CW-18659/2024] should be made to conclude within reasonably extended pe- riod depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry. 3. In view of the above, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with directions to the Disciplinary Authority to complete the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4. They stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/34