Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam, J. Director of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai has filed this writ petition, seeking to quash the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.5573 of 1999 dated 8.11.2001, whereby the charge memo issued against the first respondent was quashed. 2. Short facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows: Karuppannan, the first respondent herein was working as Agriculture Officer at Navlock Coconut Farm run by the Agriculture Department, Vellore from 24.4.1992 to 28.4.1993. Though he procured 1,27,800 Nos. of seed-nuts, he had distributed only 81,214 Nos. of coconut seedlings. As per the direction, he should have distributed 75% of the seedlings among the total quantity procured. As such, there was a shortfall of 14,636 Nos. of seedlings in distribution. Due to the same, there was loss to the Government. The Director of Agriculture, Chennai issued a charge memo dated 28.7.1999 under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Disciplinary proceedings and Appeal) Rules with reference to the above allegation. Challenging the same, the first respondent filed O.A.No.5573 of 1999 before the Tribunal. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the records, the Tribunal quashed the charge memo mainly on the ground that there was unexplained delay of five years in initiating proceedings against the first respondent. Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. We have heard learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioner and Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent. 4. There is no dispute in the fact that the alleged occurrence took place between 1.7.1992 and 28.4.1993 when the first respondent was working as Agriculture Officer at Navlock Coconut Farm run by the Agriculture Department, Vellore District. It is also not debated that the above shortfall in distribution of seedlings was pointed out by the departmental Audit for the period 1993-94. The Audit was carried out from 1.8.1995 to 27.8.1995. Then, it recommended that the Government loss should be recovered from the Officers concerned. 5. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been admitted by the petitioner that the said Audit Report was sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Navlock, Vellore on 14.2.1997. Even then, no proceedings were initiated nor any steps taken to recover the alleged Government loss either from the first respondent or from any other Officer concerned. The petitioner's Department maintained a long silence. Even then, no proceedings were initiated nor any steps taken to recover the alleged Government loss either from the first respondent or from any other Officer concerned. The petitioner's Department maintained a long silence. The first respondent was to retire from service on 31.7.1999. Just two days earlier, i.e. only on 28.7.1999, at the verge of his retirement, the petitioner's Office had woken up from the slumber and chosen to issue charge memo to the first respondent. 6. Virtually, there is no explanation given either before the Tribunal or before this Court for the delay of five years in initiating proceedings against the first respondent. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that there was only two years' delay and not five years. Even this two years' delay has not been explained. 7. The strange feature that we could notice is that the petitioner has stated in one of the grounds of the writ petition that the Tribunal erred in failing to note the monetary loss caused by the first respondent to the Government due to his inaction and lethargic attitude. When such is the charge made against the first respondent with regard to his inaction and lethargic attitude, there is no reason given as to why the petitioner's Office had shown inaction by not initiating proceedings against the first respondent in time without any delay. 8. As a matter of fact, the petitioner himself has admitted in one of the grounds that the Officers concerned in the petitioner's Office have not brought the Auditor's Report to the notice of the Government to take action against the first respondent in time and therefore, the Government proposed to take action against those Officers. This is quite strange. This would indicate that the lethargic attitude on the part of the petitioner's Office was the reason for not initiating proceedings against the first respondent in time. 9. As laid down in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N.Radhakrishnan (JT 1998 (3) SC 123), the delay defeats justice unless the applicant himself is to blame. In this case, blame cannot be put on the applicant, but petitioner himself puts the blame on his own officers. Further, as indicated by the Tribunal, the nature of the accusation contained in the charge memo also is not a serious one. 10. In this case, blame cannot be put on the applicant, but petitioner himself puts the blame on his own officers. Further, as indicated by the Tribunal, the nature of the accusation contained in the charge memo also is not a serious one. 10. Under those circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, as there is no infirmity in the same, so as to hold that it is invalid or illegal. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.14714 of 2003 is also dismissed.