Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Magistrate was initially appointed as the conducting officer. The charge memo had originated on his complaint. The petitioner bona fide apprehended bias and requested for change of the conducting officer. No presenting officer was appointed by the department for several months. The petitioner gave repeated reminders. The petitioner filed his reply on 3.5.2005. The departmental proceedings have remained pending for no fault attributable to him. On 10.10.2011 he filed a representation before the Grievance Redressal Cell constituted under the State Litigation Policy, 2011, stating that the proceedings have remained pending for inordinately long and were affecting his career prospect. Even that did not propel the respondents to expedite the proceedings. The charges themselves were vague. In the nature of the charges, the pendency of the departmental proceedings since 2004, for no lapses attributable to the petitioner, evident from the counter affidavit, further continuance of the same would be grossly arbitrary. The
