Poonam Taneja v. MMTC Limited and Anr.

1. Quashing of Memorandum of Charge of 6th April, 2017 (Annexure P-1 colly.) and order of 1st September, 2017 vide which Inquiry Officer was appointed is sought in this petition by petitioner, who is working as Chief Manager with first respondent.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that although petitioner has a good case on merits, but petitioner would be satisfied if it is directed that the Inquiry is concluded within a period of six months from today, so that petitioner may not lose out on promotion as her case for promotion was kept in sealed cover in February, 2018. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner had sought documents from first respondent in April, 2017, but now the said application will not be 2018:DHC:2290 W.P.(C) 10575/2017 pressed before Inquiry Officer. It is also submitted that petitioner has already filed a Reply to the Memorandum of Charge.

3. Both sides agree that a time-schedule for recording of evidence will be tendered to the Inquiry Officer to facilitate the conclusion of the Inquiry within a period of six months from the date so fixed by Inquiry Officer in the month of April, 2018 itself. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Inquiry will not be delayed by her, but the delay aspect needs to be explained by first respondent and ought to be considered by Inquiry Officer.

4. Let it be so done. The Inquiry Officer is called upon to make all endeavours to hold Inquiry on day-to-day basis, so far as possible, and to conclude the Inquiry within a period of six months from the date fixed for recording of evidence.

5. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of. DASTI.

JUDGE APRIL 09, 2018 s