K. G. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Sompura, Ld, AGP waives service of the rule. By the consent of the learned advocates the matter is finally heard and will stand disposed of by this judgment. ( 2 ) THE petitioner who is a Superintending Engineer in the employment of the respondent- State of Gujarat, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in clause (b) of para 13 of the petition pray as follows:" Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or directions by quashing and setting aside the charge sheet dated 16. 12. 1992. and be pleased to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of chief Engineer if he is otherwise found fit for promotion as per the rules of promotion without being influenced in any manner whatsoever and ignoring the pendency of the departmental inquiry in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 16. 12. 1992. " ( 3 ) THREE main points were urged by Mr. Oza. L. A. for the petitioner, in support of the petition. Firstly according to Mr. Oza, the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet dated December 16,1992 are all false and frivolous, and even as per the government orders, G. Rs. , Circulars and directions, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any misconduct, even if the facts alleged in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, and therefore, the charge-sheet dated December 16, 1992 issued to the petitioner should be quashed and set aside. Secondly, according to Mr. Oza. , there is inordinate delay in the matter of issuance of the charge sheet to the petitioner and therefore also the charges should be dropped and the charge sheet should be quashed on the ground of that delay. Lastly Mr. Secondly, according to Mr. Oza. , there is inordinate delay in the matter of issuance of the charge sheet to the petitioner and therefore also the charges should be dropped and the charge sheet should be quashed on the ground of that delay. Lastly Mr. Oza submitted that as now the top level committee, at its meeting held on february 16, 1993, has considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of chief Engineer, in view of the past good record of the petitioner and in view of the frivolousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the sealed cover procedure in the matter of promotion to the petition to the post of Chief Engineer should not have been followed, and the Respondent should be directed, to promote the petitioner to the post of chief Engineer ignoring the charge- sheet, if by the decision of the top level comittee placed in the sealed cover, the petitioner, has otherwise been found fit for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. ( 4 ) MR. Sompura, Ld. AGP strongly opposed the arguments of Mr. Oza. ( 5 ) AFTER having heard the learned advocates, I see no merit in the petition. ( 6 ) MR. Oza while strenuously arguing in support of the petition, took me through the relevant parts of the charge sheet commencing from page 47 of the compilation filed alongwith the petition. In the charge-sheet, firstly it is alleged against the petitioner that between February 12, 1985 and December 29, 1985, when the petitioner was working as executive Engineer, he under a supply order, purchased from Jyoti Sangh, Ahmedabad, items of stationery, drawing material, camp equipments and other miscellaneous items and that he did in violation of the Government instructions, and he made those purchases much in excess of the monetary limits fixed under the Government instructions and without preparing the estimates, and at very high rates, without inviting tenders and without following the recognised method of purchasing such items. The particulars of those items of property with respect to which this charge has been levelled against the petitioner have been given in the table and the value of those purchases is totalled at Rs. 2,64,849/- for the year 1984-85 and at Rs. 43,319/- for the year 1985-86. The particulars of those items of property with respect to which this charge has been levelled against the petitioner have been given in the table and the value of those purchases is totalled at Rs. 2,64,849/- for the year 1984-85 and at Rs. 43,319/- for the year 1985-86. Under the head of this first charge, it is alleged that the petitioner has, by committing the breaches of the government instructions, and the instructions contained in the rules quoted in the charge, and by unnecessarily blocking up government funds, shown lack of honesty and sincerity in government service. Under the second head of charge, it is alleged that the petitioner, while he was holding the additional charge of the Executive Engineer for the period betweeen september 14,1985 and December 31,1985, made payments to Jyoti Sangh, in respect of the orders placed by his predecessor Executive Engineer, in violation of Government rules. Under this head of charge, the amount involved is Rs. 30,076. 25 ps. and it is alleged that by not with holding the payment to Jyoti Sangh, in respect of the orders placed, in violation of the Govt. instructions, by the predecessor Executive Engineer, the petitioner has shown lack of honesty and sincerity in Govt. service. ( 7 ) THE third charge is similar to the second one and the amount involved is Rs. 1,49,460. 75 ps. and there, in addition, it is alleged that the petitioner, without verifying whether the purchases could have legally been made in conformity with the government rules and regulations, and whether the rates in the bills were proper or not, made payments of the bills totalling to Rs. l,49,460. 75ps. and has thus committed breaches of rule 8 of the Gujarat Financial Rules, 1971. After having gone through the charges, I do not think, they can be said to be baseless or groundless and should therefore, be quashed. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Oza, Jyoti Sangh is a recognised institution, and the government itself has issued certain instructions under which purchases could be made from Jyoti Sangh without inviting tenders; therefore, when the petitioner made purchases from Jyoti Sangh without inviting tenders, he could not be said to have committed any violation of any rules, regulations, etc. and he could not be said to have committed any misconduct. Further according to Mr. and he could not be said to have committed any misconduct. Further according to Mr. Oza, in the matter of the second and the third charges, the petitioner had only made the payments in respect of the purchases for which orders were placed by his predecessor Executive Engineer, and therefore, he could not be held responsible. Mr. Oza submitted that the petitioner is not the lone soul who has made such purchases and payments, but as many as 34 other officers of various ranks have made similar purchases and payments, and that would show that the purchases and the payments made by him are perfectly in order, and the charges are baseless. 8. 1 I think, none of these submissions of Mr. Oza can be accepted in writ petition like this. It is for the petitioner to establish before the Inquiry Authority the facts constituting his defence as have been argued before me. I am sure, the Inquiry Authority will consider in their proper perspective, these facts in defence of the petitioner, if and when advanced before him. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a substitute for a defence in a regular departmental inquiry. In a petition under Article 226, when the court is requested to quash the charges as groundless or false and frivolous, the court has to examine the charges as levelled and as they are. It should not, usurping the function of the inquiry Authority, examine the charges from the stand-point of the defences raised by the delinquent. ( 9 ) IT appears from the affidavit-in-reply sworn by Mr. A. S. Modi, Deputy Secretary to Government of Gujarat, that the Government received a complaint dated May 11,1986, that there were serious irregularities in the purchases from Jyoti Sangh. The Competent authority on July 14,1986, directed to enturst the inquiry into that complaint to the Chief engineer (NMC ). Accordingly, the inquiry was entrusted to the Chief Engineer (NMC ). The inquiry report of the Chief Engineer (NMC) was received on August 24, 1986. That authority observed to make a detailed inquiry which in turn was, on September 30, 1986, entrusted to Mr. K. G. More (probably another Chief Engineer ). The report of the said inquiry was received on January 7, 1987. The same was, on May 8,1987, sent to the independent authority for its opinion. That authority observed to make a detailed inquiry which in turn was, on September 30, 1986, entrusted to Mr. K. G. More (probably another Chief Engineer ). The report of the said inquiry was received on January 7, 1987. The same was, on May 8,1987, sent to the independent authority for its opinion. The independent authority advised the Government that there were large scale irregularities and there was a need for fixing responsibility of individual officers as well, after consulting Industries, Mines and Power Department. The government thereafter entrusted the detailed preliminary inquiry to the Cheif Engineer (QC) on July 15,1989. As irregularities were noticed, the Government, sent the preliminary inquiry report to the Industries, Mines and Power Department, and that department was on May 5,1987, requested to take action. As the report was not received, reminders were sent on March 25,1988, November 25,1988, January 27, 1989. March 7, 1989, and December 28, 1989. A detailed preliminary inquiry report of the Cheif engineer (QC), was received on May 8, 1990. On July 13, 1990, explanations of 35 delinquents were called for ( the petitioner is one of them. ). Some of the delinquents requested to extend the time limit for submitting their explanations. The Government was required to issue repeated reminders to some of the delinquents. The petitioner inspected the record on November 7, 1990. The petitioners explanation was not received upto january, 1991. The Government , therefore, sent a reminder on January 17, 1991. The petitioners explanation was received on February 7,1991. The last of the explanations of the delinquents was received as late as on October 18, 1991. However, in the meantime, and after the receipt of the explanation of the petitioner, the Government once again referred the matter to the Chief Engineer (QC) for obtaining his opinion. The report of the chief Engineer (QC) was received on November 30, 1991. Once again the entire case alongwith the explanations of the delinquents was referred to the independent authority on march 12, 1992. The independent authority considered the gravity of the charges and recommended action. The report of the independent authority was received by the government on July 8, 1992. That report was accepted by the Government on July 24,1992. Once again the entire case alongwith the explanations of the delinquents was referred to the independent authority on march 12, 1992. The independent authority considered the gravity of the charges and recommended action. The report of the independent authority was received by the government on July 8, 1992. That report was accepted by the Government on July 24,1992. As one Chief Engineer was to retire on July 31, 1992, the charge-sheet in his case was prepared and issued to him on July 28,1992, and the petitioner was issued the charge-sheet on December 16,1992. ( 10 ) AS indicated hereinabove, the charges cannot be said to be absolutely baseless so as to warrant interference at die hands of this court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. If as is contended by the petitioner, Jyoti Sangh is a recognised institution from which purchases could have been made without following the required procedure and without inviting tenders, he can put up that case before the Inquiry authority, at the time of hearing of the departmental proceedings. The request for quashing the charges on the ground that they are baseless, therefore, cannot be accpeted. ( 11 ) SO far as the second contention of Mr. Oza that there is inordinate delay in the matter of issuance of charge-sheet, I think , it is simply required to be rejected for, \ have hereinabove given the relevant dates from the affidavit-in-reply and they speak for themselves. On the facts, in light of the dates as gathered by me as stated hereinabove from the affidavit- in-reply, I think this is not a case wherein it can be said that the government has inordinately delayed issuance of the charge-sheet to the petitioner without any acceptable explanation. It appears that large scale irregularities were committed by quite a large number of Officers. Investigations and inquiries at various levels were required to be carried out. In the preliminary inquiry, as may as 35 officers have been found to be involved in the irregularities in the purchase of various items and other financial irregularities. On those facts, if the issuance of charge-sheet has been delayed, it cannot be said that there is no acceptable explanation for the delay. The submission based on the delay, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has no merit. ( 12 ) MR. On those facts, if the issuance of charge-sheet has been delayed, it cannot be said that there is no acceptable explanation for the delay. The submission based on the delay, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has no merit. ( 12 ) MR. Oza, L. A. for the petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of State of madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and Another, AIR 1990 S. C. p. 1308 in support of the submission that the delay in the matter of issuance of charge-sheet should itself prove fatal to the issuance of the charge-sheet and this court should quash the charge sheet in the present case. I think that judgment is quite distinguishable on facts. In that case, the central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench had quashed the charge-memo in. the departmental inquiry on the ground of inordinate delay of over 12 years in the initiation of departmental proceedings in respect of the incidents that had taken place in 1975-76. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court. The relevant part of the judgment is contained in para 4 of the report. There the irregularities which were the subject matter of the inquiry were said to have taken place betwen the years 1975-77, and it was not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know about it only in 1987. According to the Department, even in April 1977 , there was a doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. The delay of 12 years, in that case was, in the opinion of Their Lordships, unreasonable and there was no satisfactory explanation for that inordinate delay in issuing the charge-memo. In that judgment, Their Lordships have clearly said:"there is no satisfactory explanation-for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental inquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. "thus what we find from the judgment relied upon by Mr. Oza is that the mere fact of delay of 12 years in the issuance of the charge-memo was made the basis for quashing the charge-sheet. "thus what we find from the judgment relied upon by Mr. Oza is that the mere fact of delay of 12 years in the issuance of the charge-memo was made the basis for quashing the charge-sheet. The nature of the allegations in the charge -memo , the gravity there of and other relevant factors are not to be found in the judgment. The judgment in so far as it is relevant, proceeds merely on the ground that there was delay of 12 years in the issuance of the charge-memo, and for that delay, there was no satisfactory explanation. This is one. Secondly, Their Lordships were dealing with an appeal against the judgment of the central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal had quashed the charge-memo and in that context, in the last lines of paragraph 4 of the report, Their Lordships have said:"in any case, there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunals orders and accordingly we dismiss the appeal. "when the Tribunal had found the delay of 12 years to be unreasonable and devoid of any satisfactory explanation. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court found that there was no ground to interfere with the Tribunals order. ( 13 ) THE present is not a case of the type before the Supreme Court Here, as I have indicated hereinabove, large-scale financial irregularities came to notice and as many as 35 Officers have been found to be involved. Extensive inquiries were required to be made and at various stages; different Chief Engineers were required to handle the inquries. Even independent authorities were required to be consulted at different stages. All these procedures would obviously take a long time. I think, delay by itself could never be fatal to the initiation of departmental proceedings. It is the unexplained delay, which can, in a given case, prove fatal to the initiation of the departmental proceedings. Now, whether the delay is inordinate or not, would again depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and would also depend upon the magnitude of the irregularities required to be investigated. Furthermore, when the facts themselves are clear whether they furnish the acceptable explanation for the delay, would again depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Now, whether the delay is inordinate or not, would again depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and would also depend upon the magnitude of the irregularities required to be investigated. Furthermore, when the facts themselves are clear whether they furnish the acceptable explanation for the delay, would again depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There cannot be a straight-jacket formula by which it can be said that delay of certain fixed length of time in the initiation of departmental proceedings would not prove fatal and any delay beyond that length of time would prove fatal. To put such straight-jacket formula as to when the departmental proceedings should commence would be a hazardous proposition. Once again, at the cost of repetition, I would say that when the court is asked to consider the question of delay, it would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. So far as the facts and circumstances of the present case are concerned, I have narrated the relevant dates in the earlier part of this judgment and those dates have been taken from the affidavit-in-reply. At various stages, various officers were required to hold preliminary inquiry. Opionion of the independent authority was required to be obtained both before and after the receipt of the explanations of the delinquents including the petitioner, before the final decision to issue the charge-sheet was taken. The final decision in the matter came to be taken on July 24,1992. The matter was required to be processed post-haste for the case of one Chief Engineer who was to retire on July 31,1992, and the cases of others, including the petitioner were also dealt with, and the charge-sheet to the petitioner came to be issued on December 16, 1992. I think, on these facts, there is sufficient acceptable explanation furnished by the Respondent in the matter of delay. The contention to the contrary raised by Mr. Oza, therefore, cannot be accepted. ( 14 ) THE last submission of Mr. Oza was that ignoring the charges, the petitioner should be promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, if he is otherwise found fit by the top level committee, the result of the consideration of the case of the petitioners by which has been kept in sealed cover. According to Mr. ( 14 ) THE last submission of Mr. Oza was that ignoring the charges, the petitioner should be promoted to the post of Chief Engineer, if he is otherwise found fit by the top level committee, the result of the consideration of the case of the petitioners by which has been kept in sealed cover. According to Mr. Oza, the petitioner has an unblemished service career and looking to the charges, there is now no meaning in keeping the result of the petitioners case in the sealed cover, and the court should direct that the sealed cover should be opened and if the petitioner is found fit, the respondent should be directed to promote him to the post of Chief Engineer. This contention is required to be rejected without much of discussion. ( 15 ) THE case as regards applicability of sealed cover procedure is squarely covered by the Government of Gujarat, G. A. D. , Resolution No. SLT-1080-895-G. 2,dated september 23,1981. Paragraph 3 of that resolution provides for the applicability of sealed cover procedure to cases like this. Here the facts are clear. The charge-sheet containing charges about financial irregularities and lack of honesty and sincerity has been served to the petitioner on December 16,1992. The case of the petitioner was taken up by the top level committee for consideration on February 16, 1993. Thus, on the date when the top level committee consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, the charge-sheet had already been issued to the petitioner. The sealed cover procedure, contemplated by paragraph 3 of the aforesaid resolution therefore, was clearly applicable to the facts of the case. No exception can be taken to the decision of the authorities to follow the sealed cover procedure. The following decisions also support the aforesaid view which I am inclined to take. (A) Union of India, etc. etc. vs. K. V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC p. 2010; (B) Union of India vs. Kewal Kumar, JT 1993 (2) SC 705 ; and (C) Delhi Development Authority vs. H. C. Khurana, JT 1993 (2) SC, 695. ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid judgments, and in view of the provision contained in paragraph 3 of the Govt. etc. vs. K. V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC p. 2010; (B) Union of India vs. Kewal Kumar, JT 1993 (2) SC 705 ; and (C) Delhi Development Authority vs. H. C. Khurana, JT 1993 (2) SC, 695. ( 16 ) IN view of the aforesaid judgments, and in view of the provision contained in paragraph 3 of the Govt. Resolution abovementioned, I am sure, no exception can be taken to the action of the Respondent, and the request of the petitioner that the respondent should be ordered to promote him to the post of Chief Engineer, ignoring the charge-sheet, if he is found fit in the decision of the top level committee, just cannot be accepted. The petition has, therefore, no merits. The same is rejected. Rule is discharged. .