JUDGMENT B.N. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner challenges Exts. P9 and P11 orders by which punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him being found guilty of charges in a departmental enquiry. 2. The petitioner was alleged to have committed grave misconduct while working as U.D. Clerk/Rationing Inspector in the Taluk Supply Office, Vythiri during the years 1983-1986. A departmental proceeding was initiated under R.15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 by the Board of Revenue by their letter dated 9.6.1989. After observing all the formalities of law, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report with the finding that the petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct. The Board of Revenue which was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement by Ext. P9 order dated 24.8.1990. On appeal preferred by the petitioner the State Government by Ext. P11 order dated 9.4.1991 confirmed the order passed by the Board of Revenue by holding that the petitioner was guilty of grave misconduct and the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement was just and proper. 3. The petitioner contended that the aforesaid orders are vitiated on the ground that neither the Board of Revenue nor the State Government consulted the Public Service Commission before passing the final order imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. It is also contended that the delay in initiating and concluding the proceeding has caused serious prejudice to him. The penalty imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and as such it should be set aside. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 it is stated that it was not necessary for the Board of Revenue which is a subordinate authority of the Government to consult the Public Service Commission before imposing the major penalty of compulsory retirement. By Ext. R1(a) Circular dated 7.1.1985 the State Government has instructed that the disciplinary authorities subordinate to the Government need not consult the Public Service Commission before the imposition of any of the major penalties including compulsory retirement from service. The proceeding was initiated against the petitioner within a reasonable period and there is no such inordinate delay in finally disposing of the proceeding. The proceeding was initiated against the petitioner within a reasonable period and there is no such inordinate delay in finally disposing of the proceeding. Since one of the charges is that the petitioner committed the offence of forgery in the official records his continuance in service was found undesirable and as such the imposition is penalty of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. 5. Admittedly neither the Board of Revenue nor the Government consulted the Public Service Commission before passing the impugned orders. The question for consideration is whether the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is vitiated due to non consultation with the Public Service Commission in accordance with Circular No. 145341/SD2/84/GAD dated 7.1.1985 (Ext. R1(a)). The imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement is one of the major penalties prescribed under R.11 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (for short, CCA Rules). R.15 A of the said rules prescribes the procedure for imposing major penalties. Clause (ii) of sub-r. (1-2) of R.15 lays down that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission the record of the inquiry together with a copy of the notice given under Clause (i) and the representation made in response to such notice, if any, shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for advice. Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations, 1957 have been framed under Art.320(3) of the Constitution of India. Part II thereof deals with matters in respect of which it shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted. Regulation 6(1) thereunder lays down as follows: "It shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted on any disciplinary matter affecting a person serving in connection with the affairs of the State, except - (a) where the Government proposes to pass an original order imposing any of the following punishments namely:- (i) reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower post or time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale; (ii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government or to the Central Government or to a local authority by negligence or breach of orders; (iii) compulsory retirement. Explanations:- The retirement under the Service Regulations for the time being in force of an officer on the completion of the age of superannuation or otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the Service Regulations for the time being in force shall not be deemed to be compulsory retirement within the meaning of this sub clause; (iv) removal from the civil service of the Government; or (v) dismissal from the civil service of the Government; Provided that it shall not be necessary to consult the Commission in cases where orders are passed under proviso (c) to clause (2) of Art.311 of the Constitution of India. (b) where the Government propose to pass an order in appeal or revision or review imposing any of the penalties referred to in sub clause (a); or (c) where in an appeal or revision from (or review of) an order which has imposed any of the penalties referred to in sub clause (a) Government propose to pass any order". Thus consultation as contemplated in clause (ii) of sub-r. (12) of R.15 of the CCA Rules is necessary only if there is any rule or regulation to do so under the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations. As has been pointed out above, Regulation 6(1) clearly contemplates that only when the Government propose to pass an original order imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement among other punishments that consultation with the Public Service Commission is necessary before the said punishment is imposed. There is no provision in the Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations requiring any subordinate authority of the Government to consult the Public Service Commission while imposing a major penalty like compulsory retirement. The Board of Revenue is not a "Government". On the other hand, it is subordinate authority of the Government. Thus, the instructions contained in Ext. R1(a) does not militate against Regulation No. 6 of the aforesaid Regulations. The order under challenge being not an original order of the Government it was not necessary for the Board of Revenue to consult the Public Service Commission. Ext. P11 is the appellate order. Clause (b) of Regulation No. 6(1) refers to an order which the Government proposes to pass in appeal or revision or review imposing one of the penalties like compulsory retirement. Ext. P11 is the appellate order. Clause (b) of Regulation No. 6(1) refers to an order which the Government proposes to pass in appeal or revision or review imposing one of the penalties like compulsory retirement. But, if the Government confirms an order passed by the subordinate authority or the Government do not propose to pass any original order of penalty, either in supersession or in modification of the penalty imposed by the subordinate authority, then also it is not necessary for the Government to consult the Public Service Commission. In the present case, there is no original order of the Government proposing to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Kalidas v. State of Kerala ( 1988 (2) KLT 613 ) and contended that if there is non compliance with R.15(12) of CCA Rules, the imposition of penalty is illegal and invalid. The learned single Judge only referred to R.15(12) of the CCA Rules. He did not refer to Regulation No. 6 of the Kerala Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations. R.15(12) of CCA Rules clearly indicates that only when consultation is necessary under the Regulations, then non compliance of the said provision renders the order illegal. But, the regulation, as has been referred to above, does not contemplate consultation with the Public Service Commission by the subordinate authorities of the Government before imposing major penalties. Since it was not necessary for the Board of Revenue to consult the Public Service Commission in this case, it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is illegal. The decision of Kalidas's case is not an authority on the question at issue. In Bhagaval Das v. State of Kerala ( 1994 (1) KLT 94 ) which is a decision rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court, quashed the impugned order of imposition of major penalty on the ground that the penalty imposed by the State Government was illegal on account .of non consultation with the Public Service Commission in accordance with Public Service Commission (Consultation) Regulations. The facts are therefore, clearly distinguishable. Hence I find that non consultation with the PSC by the Board of Revenue or the Government in this case, did not vitiate the proceeding. Nor did it render Exts. The facts are therefore, clearly distinguishable. Hence I find that non consultation with the PSC by the Board of Revenue or the Government in this case, did not vitiate the proceeding. Nor did it render Exts. P9 and P11 orders as illegal on this ground. 7. It is indeed true that Ext. P2 Memo of Charges were served on the petitioner on 19.1.1988 in respect of misconduct that was alleged to have been committed in the years 1983 to 1986. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the inordinate delay in initiating the proceeding for the events which took place more than five years ago is bad in law. The Supreme Court in State of A. P. v. N. Radhakrishnan (1988) 4 SCC 154, lays down as follows: "It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated, each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay, particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse conditions" In the present case it is found that the petitioner had been committing acts of misconduct persistently and ultimately when it was found that he was incorrigible the authorities decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. This decision was precipitated when it was found that the petitioner has committed a grave offence of forgery in the official records. Although there is some delay in initiating the proceedings or in serving the charge memo, yet that delay cannot be taken as a ground to hold that it has caused prejudice to him. 8. In A.P. Augustine v. Supdt. of Post Offices ( 1984 KLT 226 ) a learned single Judge of this Court observed that no fair and effective enquiry can be conducted unless it commences within a reasonable time after the incident. To call upon an employee to defend himself at this distance of time is probably to put him at considerable disadvantage and thus deny him the benefits of natural justice. That was a case under R.9(1) of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct & Services) Rules, 1964. In that case the employee was put off from duty without any enquiry or payment of salary or allowances for an unduly long period of 2 1/2 years. But this is not a case where the petitioner was put off from duty without any payment of salary or allowance for an unduly long period. No case was made out that the petitioner was not paid any subsistence allowance to which he was entitled during the period of his suspension. That apart the enquiry in this case was made solely on the basis of records and documents of the department. No case was made out that the petitioner was not paid any subsistence allowance to which he was entitled during the period of his suspension. That apart the enquiry in this case was made solely on the basis of records and documents of the department. There is no allegation that such records and documents on which the department relied were not available or that inspection of the same was denied to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the facts of the aforesaid decision are distinguishable from the present case. In Sadasivan Pillai v. State of Kerala ( 1983 KLT 142 ) it was found that the enquiry was sought to be conducted against a retired officer in respect of events that had occurred more than four years before his retirement. In that context, it was found that the enquiry was held in violation of R.3 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules inasmuch as limitation for institution of such enquiry in respect of a previous misconduct was prescribed as four years and the enquiry in that case was conducted beyond that period. Therefore, in that case, on the ground of delay alone the proceeding was quashed. The facts of this case are also distinguishable on that ground. 9. The allegation against the petitioner that he committed forgery of official records is found to have been proved by the enquiring officer, disciplinary authority and the Government. This is, to say the least, is an offence punishable under the law. Such misconduct is always considered to be of very grave nature. The punishment of compulsory retirement is therefore, cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. In such cases, further continuance of the delinquent in service is highly undesirable. The contention of the petitioner on this count fails. 10. For the reasons stated above, I find that there is no merit in this Writ Petition. It is therefore, dismissed. No costs.