TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is working as a Conductor with the respondent-Corporation. His services were terminated for the first time in the year 1982. On an appeal filed by him, the termination was set aside resulting in his reinstatement. He was dismissed once again in the year 1983. He questioned this dismissal before the Labour Court at Gulbarga, who eventually passed an award setting aside the order of dismissal and directing his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Since the year 1988, he has been working in Raichur and subsequently in Bellary Divisions of the respondent-Corporation. ( 2 ) IN the present writ petition, he calls in question four different charge-sheets served upon him and marked as annexures 'b', 'e', 'h' and 'l' to this writ petition dated 29th of april, 1995, 29th of April, 1995, 9th of May, 1995 and 10th of may, 1995 respectively. He also calls in question the appointment of an enquiry officer by an order dated 28th of april, 1995 for purposes of holding an enquiry into the charges contained in the aforementioned charge-sheets. The challenge to the charge-sheets as also the proposed enquiry is two fold. Firstly, it is contended that the charge-sheets have been issued and an enquiry proposed to be conducted in terms of Regulations framed under Section 45 (2) of the Road Transport Corporations act, which regulations according to the petitioner are not applicable to him as he continues to be governed by the standing orders of the Corporation framed under the Industrial employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Secondly, it is argued that the proposed enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner after a lapse of nearly 12 years from the date the alleged misconduct was committed by the petitioner is wholly unfair, improper and unjust. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) SO far as the first ground of challenge to the charge-sheets as,also the proposed enquiry is concerned, the question raised by the petitioner has been answered by me in Writ Petition Nos. 12417 to 12422 of 1992 and connected matters. ( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 4 ) SO far as the first ground of challenge to the charge-sheets as,also the proposed enquiry is concerned, the question raised by the petitioner has been answered by me in Writ Petition Nos. 12417 to 12422 of 1992 and connected matters. This Court has come to the conclusion that the employees of the respondent-Corporation continue to be governed by the statutory regulations framed under Section 45 of the Road Transport corporations Act and that the Standing Orders framed under the Standing Orders Act have been excluded from application in terms of Section 13-B of the said Act. For the reasons stated by me in the said judgment, the first ground of attack urged on behalf of the petitioner must fail and is accordingly rejected. ( 5 ) COMING then to the alternative ground raised by the petitioner, I find considerable merit in the same. It is not in dispute that the charge-sheets served upon the petitioner accused him of misconduct by reference to events that are said to have taken place more than 10 to 12 years ago. There is no explanation forthcoming either from the charge-sheets or otherwise for the inordinate delay in the initiation of the proceeding. It is not the case of the responded Corporation that the acts of omission or commission, with which the petitioner is charged were not within its knowledge. If that be so, it is difficult to appreciate how the Corporation could afford to sleep over the matter for more than a decade and suddenly decide to initiate proceedings on the basis of any such charges at this distant point of time. An employee whether of the State or a corporation like the respondent herein is entitled to expect that in case he is accused of any misconduct in the course of his official duties, an enquiry into any such misconduct shall be initiated and concluded within a reasonable period. An employee whether of the State or a corporation like the respondent herein is entitled to expect that in case he is accused of any misconduct in the course of his official duties, an enquiry into any such misconduct shall be initiated and concluded within a reasonable period. Such an expectation is reasonable not only because an employer particularly when it is expected to be a model employer like the state or even a State owned statutory Corporation like the respondent herein, must act fairly and be answerable for any indolence, inaction and negligence on its part but also because permitting the employer to dig up old and forgotten cases would be fraught with chances of witch hunting and harassment of the employees. The proposed enquiry into the charges at this point of time is in the circumstances unfair not only because the respondents have no explanation to tender for the delay but also because the petitioner is bound to be prejudicially affected in any such enquiry, where it would be difficult for him to defend himself for act or events so far removed from the immediate past or present. I am fortified in this view by a judgment of the supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v Bani Singh and another. That was a case where the Central Administrative tribunal had quashed a charge memo served upon the petitioner as also the departmental enquiry initiated against him on the ground of a delay of about 12 years in the initiation of the departmental proceedings. Upholding the view taken by the tribunal that an enquiry into the matter after 12 years would be unfair and unreasonable, the Supreme Court observed thus:"4. The appeal against the order dated 16-12-1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry, to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. 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 enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal". ( 6 ) THE ratio of the above decision is clearly applicable to the present case also. In the result, this petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned charge-sheets so also the order appointing the enquiry officer for conducting an enquiry into the same is hereby quashed ( 7 ) IN the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .