JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner challenged the charge-sheet dated April 9, 1988 issued by the Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Department, the enquiry proceedings and the findings of the Deputy Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Vigilance Commission, West Bengal, as Inquiring Authority dated 13.7.82 and the Second Show Cause Notice dated February 24, 1983 and the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. The subject matter of challenge is the determination of the proceeding under Section 4 of Section 2 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973. The order is contained in Annexure 'A' to the Writ Application. The writ petitioner was served with the charge-sheet as indicated in Articles of Charge I, II and III which are quoted below :- Article of Charge I "It appears that Sri Binayak Datta while functioning as Kanungo I at Satpala Halka Camp from March 6, 1976 to November 15, 1976 acted as Special Officers as defined under Clause (4) of Section 2 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 and had, as it appears while passing the order on October 27, 1976 in favour of Sri Banshidhar Mondal son of Late Gobinda Chandra Mondal of Uchpur in connection with case No. 204/76 of Mayureswar Block II instituted by Sri Mondal under the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 taken a sum of Rs. 400/- from the said Shri Mondal of the plea of depositing the said as first instalment although he had no authority to accept' such instalment. It appears that the said amount or any part of it has not been sent to the owner of the land. The above conduct of Shri Binayak Datta amounts to cheating. Such conduct of Sri Datta prima facie shows lack of integrity and is improper and unbecoming of a Govt. servant and is also derogatory to the prestice of Govt. Service. Article of Charge III It appears that the said Datta while functioning as Kanunga I at Satpala Halka Camp during the period from 6th March, 1976 to 15th November, 1976 acted as Special Officer as defined under Clause (4) of Section 2 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 and obtained signature of Sri Anadi Kr. Service. Article of Charge III It appears that the said Datta while functioning as Kanunga I at Satpala Halka Camp during the period from 6th March, 1976 to 15th November, 1976 acted as Special Officer as defined under Clause (4) of Section 2 of the West Bengal Restoration of Alienated Land Act, 1973 and obtained signature of Sri Anadi Kr. Mondal petitioner of Case No. 229/76 on a white sheet of paper and subsequently falsely recorded the state of the said petitioner to enable him to pass an order against the petitioner on the latter's refusal to concede to his demand of Rs. 700/- and thereby deprived the petitioner from his legitimate claim. Such conduct of Sri Datta prima facie shows lack of Integrity and is improper and unbecoming of a Govt. servant and derogatory to the prestige of the Govt. and as such is violate of Rules 3 and 4 of the West Bengal Govt. Servants Conduct Rules, 1959." 2. The petitioner replied to the said charges by letter dated November 9, 1981. The said letter is contained in Annexure 'C'. The petitioner by the said letter prayed for permission for his representation in the Department proceeding by a legal practitioner. The petitioner further submitted a representation on June 29, 1982. The said representation is contained in Annexure 'C' Enquiry proceeding was commenced, continued and concluded and the Second Show Cause notice was issued. The Second Show Cause notice is contained in Annexure 'E' to the writ application. The petitioner challenged the said entire proceedings including the charge-sheet and the Second Show Cause notice on various ground. 3. Mr. D.P. Majumdar appearing on behalf of the Respondents filed A/O. The said A/O deals with the material allegations made in the writ application. 4. Mr. Molay Chakraborty appearing in support of the Rule claimed and contended that the charge is overstale in character of the ground that the alleged charge relates to the period between March 6, 1976 and November 15, 1976. No explanation has been offered as to how and why such charges after a lapse of almost four years have been fastened on the petitioner. It is claimed by Mr. Chakraborty that the Disciplinary Authority did not act in terms of the provisions as contained in sub-rule (10) of Rule 10. It is also claimed by Mr. No explanation has been offered as to how and why such charges after a lapse of almost four years have been fastened on the petitioner. It is claimed by Mr. Chakraborty that the Disciplinary Authority did not act in terms of the provisions as contained in sub-rule (10) of Rule 10. It is also claimed by Mr. Chakraborty that the enquiry proceeding was vitiated by the following infirmities namely (i) The Enquiring Officer did not consider the deposition of prosecution witness No.3 in its correct perspective (ii) Enquiry Office without any reason whatsoever declared Basudeb Mondal hostile (iii) The Enquiring Officer did not consider the materials on record and (iv) The Enquiring Officer failed the prayer of the petitioner to take assistance of lawyer (v) The Disciplinary Authority acted mechanically in issuing the Second Show Cause without securing the compliance of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10 of the West Bengal Classification Control & Appeal Rules, 1971 (for short 'the said Rules' hereafter). 5. Mr. Chakraborty referred and relied on the decision of this Court made in the case (1) S.N. Ghose v. State of West Bengal reported in 1984(1) Cal LJ at page 56 and also the judgment of this Court made in the case of (2) Subrata Chaki v. State of West Bengal reported in 90 CWN at page 290. It is held by the Court of Appeal presided over by Chittatosh Mukherjee, J. that inordinate delay to conclude the departmental proceeding would be a ground for quashing the entire proceedings. Mr. Chakraborty further relied and referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court made in the case of (3) Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) reported in 1988(3) SCC at Page 607 at page 742. 6. Mr. Chakraborty referred to the relevant portion of the judgment in support of his contention that the decision of the authority to declare Basudev Mondal is unauthorised. The such relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below: “An endeavour is made to impeach Bimala Chalsa, firs, on the ground that she turned hostile and second that she was examined belatedly. I must stated that merely because she turned hostile her evidence cannot be discarded. That is a well accepted proposition. She has no axe to grind against any person. She gains nothing telling falsehood or incorrect things against Khar Sing. I must stated that merely because she turned hostile her evidence cannot be discarded. That is a well accepted proposition. She has no axe to grind against any person. She gains nothing telling falsehood or incorrect things against Khar Sing. She has revealed what she was told and what she had witnesses on October 17th 1984 in her own house. There is, therefore, no reason to discharge that part of her testimony. As to the second complaint, it is true the police did not record her statement immediately after the incident. That is understandable. She has lost her husband. She was in immeasurable grief. She ought to be allowed time to compose herself. Both the objections raised against her testimony are, therefore not sound. 7. Mr. Majumdar appearing for the Respondents claimed that the writ petitioner is utterly premature on the grounds as are taken in the affidavit-in-opposition and no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner ought to have waited till the final order is passed. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases also the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties I accept the contention made by Mr. Molay Chakraborty on the ground that the proceeding having been vitiated by inordinate delay in initiating the proceeding, departure from the violation of the provisions as contained in the said rules, consideration of the irrelevant materials to the exclusion of the relevant materials. It is to enoted that this Court in the case of (4) Collector of Customs v. B. N. Mukherjee. laid down the principles which would Invalidate the quasi judicial orders reported in (1974) Cal LJ at Page 251. The case of the defence is required to be considered on merits. But I am unable to except the contentions of Mr. Majumdar because the disciplinary proceedings is infected with Incurable infirmities. The contentions of Mr. Majumdar cannot but fail. The disciplinary authority did not act in terms or sub-rule (10) of Rule 10 nor did he record his independents findings. Mere parrot-like chanting from the statute would not be a sufficient and substantial compliance of the provisions as contained in the said Rules. The entire proceedings, in my view, by reason of the infirmities, as indicated above, cannot but be quashed. 9. Mere parrot-like chanting from the statute would not be a sufficient and substantial compliance of the provisions as contained in the said Rules. The entire proceedings, in my view, by reason of the infirmities, as indicated above, cannot but be quashed. 9. I, accordingly, set aside the charge sheet on the ground of inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings and also quash the entire proceedings including the enquiry and the second show cause notice by reason of the clearest infraction of the provisions as contained in the said Rules. The Enquiring Officer, as would appear from the Enquiry Report appearing at page 105 of the application, reached his finding on suspicion. It is well settled that suspicion cannot take the place of proof and any finding reached on surmises, conjectures and suspicion is liable to be interfered with and I, accordingly, set aside the enquiry report on this ground also. The Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. Let appropriate writs issue accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.