BISWAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative tribunal Act, 1985, filed at the instance of one Shri Bholanath Bandopadhyay @ Banerjee, petitioner herein, praying for setting aside of the impugned charge sheet, 2nd show cause memo and orders deciding to impose the penalty and the entire proceeding. ( 2 ) THE short facts leading to the filing of this application are as under:-The applicant being graduate and holding a certificate of Draftsmanship joined in the I and W Directorate, Government of West Bengal in 1967 as Work assistant. Thereafter, he became Tracer in 1969 in the same Directorate and he was also selected and appointed as Draftsman in the year 1972. Applicant, thereafter, in the year 1981 appointed to the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer and on being so appointed he joined the aforesaid post at Amlagora in the Divisional Office under Kangshabati Project and thereafter the applicant was transferred to Howrah Irrigation Division and after several transfers in 1995, the applicant was transferred to Joynagar under Joynagar irrigation Division and it has been alleged by the petitioner that since 1967 he has been serving under the same Directorate with unblemished service record and to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. It has further been alleged by him that the applicant, while posted under the Executive Engineer, Canals Division at Mirza Galib Street, received a memo being No. 893 (2) dated 6. 3. 92 from the aforesaid officer enclosing therewith another memo being No. 79-ACV dated 28. 2. 92 from the District magistrate and District Vigilance Commission officer directing the applicant and two other Sub-Asstt. Engineers to appear before the Investigation Officer at the Vigilance Commission with various documents on 12. 3. 92 for examining against an allegation in connection with one anticorruption enquiry. Applicant however, appeared before the said authority on 19. 3. 92 and on subsequent dates from time to time although enquiry in the connected matter was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice and the doctrine of fair play. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that thereafter by memo dated 16. 10. Applicant however, appeared before the said authority on 19. 3. 92 and on subsequent dates from time to time although enquiry in the connected matter was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice and the doctrine of fair play. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that thereafter by memo dated 16. 10. 1998, the respondent authority initiated the departmental proceeding under rule 10 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1997 (in short C. C. A. Rules 1997) and the copies of unsigned articles of charges, statement of imputations, list of documents proposed to be relied upon and list of witnesses were served on him. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that the charges were brought against him were all stale, baseless, vague and unfounded and such charges were brought without any application of mind by the appropriate authority and those were brought almost after lapse of more than six years. Applicant thereafter appeared before the enquiring authority denied the charges and submitted a written statement wherein it was disclosed by him that the first charge was unfounded and based on not taking into account the amount borrowed by the wife of the applicant from her father as it was admitted by the applicant's brother-in-law during the proceeding. It was also contended on behalf of the 2nd charge that a sum of Rs. 19,700/- were also taken by his wife from her father and brother in phases. ( 3 ) AS regards the allegation of non-disclosure of the construction of a residential house on a plot of land purchased from a Co-operative, it was submitted that such technical omission on his part was due to lack of his knowledge and not intentional as due permission to purchase a residential plot of land was accorded by the Supdt. Engineer in his letter dated 2. 7. 1980. Engineer in his letter dated 2. 7. 1980. ( 4 ) BESIDES the above, the applicant has attacked the aforesaid departmental proceeding including the charge sheet and the final order on the following grounds :-Firstly, it is quite apparent from the fact that the impugned proceeding have been proposed under Rule 10 of the C. C. A. Rules, 1997 and with sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of the provision to sub-rule (i) of Rule 10 of West bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rule, 1971 and the applicant on the date of the charge was very much in the service as Sub-Asstt. Engineer under the Directorate of I and W and as such he was neither dead or retired on such date and subsequently, the impugned charge memo as has been brought against him rs without any statutory foundation. Secondly, there is also reflection of rule in the charge sheet known as w. B. (C. C. A.) Rules, 1997. This apart from rendering the impunged charge sheet without any legal foundation also evinces extreme non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority and on that ground alone, the relevant charge sheet deserves to be quashed. Thirdly, in the instant charge sheet itself at paragraph 3, the name of the enquiry officer was disclosed which shows that the disciplinary authority has already made up their mind which reflects extreme biasness on the part of the disciplinary authority without affording the charged officer with an opportunity to submit his explanation to the disciplinary authority first and the naming of the Enquiring Officer at the first instance is a prejudged steps in a closed and biased mind and as s_ich the initiation of the present proceeding is quite illegal, void and bad in law. ( 5 ) IT has further been alleged that the charges relating to the acquisition of disproportionate assets relate to the period as far back as 1980 and 1982 and the technical defects in the assets statements also relate to 1984 and 1985, 1988-1989, but the impugned charge sheet was served only in October, 1998 i. e. after a lapse of considerable period and as such those have become stale charges which deserve;; ex-facie quashing of the aforesaid charges. ( 6 ) FURTHER more, it has also been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the Superintending Engineer, being the competent authority, at the relevant time on being requested by the petitioner already permitted the applicant to purchase the land under his letter No. 3990 dated 2. 7. 80 and such permission, granted by the appropriate authority cannot be reopened after the lapse of two decades and due to the long time gap it has made it almost impossible to produce essential documents with regard to the aforesaid matters. ( 7 ) MOREOVER, the applicant was awarded promotion to the post of sub-Asstt. Engineer in 1981 and he was given benefit of C. A. Scheme in 1996 and he was also granted time scale of Rs. 4650-10175/- and all subsequent annual increments were released till the year 2000 and it is however needless to say that awarding of a higher scale and benefits of C. A. Scheme are admissible only on satisfying the identical criteria as applicable to promotion. ( 8 ) LASTLY, it has been contended on their behalf that the report and the findings of the enquiring authority are all perverse since cogent materials were discarded and un-tenable logic were advanced in coming to the conclusion of guilt and the enquiring authority took up upon himself a task of rebutting the evidence, produced by the applicant. ( 9 ) IT has further been alleged that the disciplinary authority relying upon such perverse findings of the enquiring authority, served a purported second show cause notice without making any independent finding and in the second show cause, the disciplinary authority has not proposed any punishment but has already imposed punishment which is not in consonance with the provision of law and that also exposes the biasness in mind of the disciplinary authority. ( 10 ) FURTHER more, the disciplinary authority has taken into account the extraneous consideration in coming to the final conclusion and on that score alone the entire proceeding including the final order deserves to be quashed. Moreover, there were two separate final orders-one on 15. 5. 2000 and another on 21. 9. 2000 and both such orders were passed in the same proceeding. Moreover, there were two separate final orders-one on 15. 5. 2000 and another on 21. 9. 2000 and both such orders were passed in the same proceeding. ( 11 ) AGAIN it has been contended on their behalf that the entire proceeding in which the 2nd final order has been passed in total violation of established procedure and this is an illuminating example of high handedness, whims, caprice and arbitrariness and/or contrary to the principles of natural justice and the punishment of compulsory retirement, as imposed in the instant case is not only illegal but also harsh, shocking and does not commensurate with the alleged offence and as such it is not maintainable in terms of judicial pronouncements. Consequently, the petitioner has come up before this Tribunal with the prayers as mentioned at the outset. ( 12 ) THIS application however, has been opposed by the respondent authority by filing reply wherein they have denied all the material allegations of the petitioner. It has, inter alia, been contended on behalf of the respondent authority that the Article of charges in the present case was initiated in accordance with the settled position of law and disciplinary authority duly applied his mind in the matter and on the basis of the enquiry report and after giving full opportunities to the charged officer, decision was taken in the instant matter properly over the issues involved in the alleged proceeding in respect of penalty of compulsory retirement and according to them there is no reason for interference by this Tribunal. ( 13 ) WITH these, they pray for dismissal of the instant application. ( 14 ) NOW, the only question, which we are called upon to decide here, is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. ( 15 ) WE have also heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties at length and we have also looked into the materials available on record with meticulous care. ( 16 ) BY this application the petitioner has assailed the impugned charge sheet, second show cause and the final orders-one passed on 15. 5. 2000 and another passed on 21. 9. 2000 in connection with the aforesaid departmental proceeding and the entire proceeding. ( 16 ) BY this application the petitioner has assailed the impugned charge sheet, second show cause and the final orders-one passed on 15. 5. 2000 and another passed on 21. 9. 2000 in connection with the aforesaid departmental proceeding and the entire proceeding. ( 17 ) IN assailing the impunged charge sheet, it has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that in drawing up the aforesaid charge sheet there is absolute non-application of mind by the concerned respondent authorities inasmuch as although, at the time of serving the charge sheet upon the petitioner he was very much in the service and even in such a situation, it was reflected in the charge sheet, specially in the memorandum that the authority concerned proposes to hold an enquiry under Rule 10 of C. C. A. Rules, 1997 read with sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-rule (i) of Rule 10 of West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rule, 1971. ( 18 ) IT has further been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that apart from the above, at the time of serving of Article of charges, on the petitioner, one Mr. P. N. Kundo, Dy. Commissioner of Departmental Enquiry, Vigilance commission, W. B. , was also named as an enquiring authority to enquire into the allegation and this shows that before filing of the written statement, as was directed in the aforesaid memorandum, the authority concerned already framed their mind to proceed with the enquiry even if it was subsequently found otherwise form the written statement, filed by the charged officer. ( 19 ) AGAIN it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the charges, proposed to be framed in the aforesaid departmental proceedings, were for acquisition of dis-proportionate assets for the period during the year 1980 and 1982 and the technical defects in the assets statements were for the periods ranging from 1984 to 1989, but the impugned charge sheet was served only in October, 1998 i. e. almost after a lapse of considerable period and the delay for furnishing the charge sheet has not also been explained by the respondent authority and as such the same has become stale charges which deserves ex facie quashing. ( 20 ) NOW, coming to the second show cause notice, it has also been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that in the second show cause some sorts of biasness has been exposed by the respondent authority inasmuch as it was also indicated in the second show cause notice that the petitioner was directed to furnish reply as to why the punishment imposed upon him will not be applied. This shows that even at that stage, authority concerned had already made up their mind for punishing the petitioner by inflicting punishment for compulsory retirement and in that asking for 2nd show cause became an idle formality. ( 21 ) NOW, with regard to the final order, passed in the connected matter, it has also been alleged by the petitioner that it is some what un-known that in a departmental proceeding two sets of final orders could be passed by the departmental authority-one dated 15. 5. 2000 and another dated 21. 9. 2000, but in the final order there is no reflection whatsoever with regard- to the reply to the second show cause, filed on behalf of the petitioner and this shows clearly that there has been non-application of mind by the respondent authority and in that it has also violated the settled norms with regard to the disciplinary proceeding and patent illegalities have been committed therefor. ( 22 ) ON these broad issues, the present application was placed before us from the side of the petitioner and against that a routine defence has been taken from the side of the respondent authority alleging therein that there was no illegality in the connected matter and the article of charges were initiated in accordance with law and the disciplinary authority had duly applied their mind and on the basis of the enquiry report and after giving full opportunity to the charged officer, decision was taken properly over the issues involved in the alleged proceeding in respect of penalty of voluntary retirement. ( 23 ) WE have given our anxious consideration with regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties before us. We have also perused the available materials including the article of charges, memorandum of second show cause and two final orders and other relevant papers with meticulous care. ( 23 ) WE have given our anxious consideration with regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties before us. We have also perused the available materials including the article of charges, memorandum of second show cause and two final orders and other relevant papers with meticulous care. ( 24 ) IT is now quite will settled position of law that the charge sheet could be assailed and subjected to judicial review and the same is liable to be declared as invalid on any one of the following grounds :- (i) If it is not in conformity with law; (ii) If it is discloses bias or pre-judgment of the guilt of the charged employee ; (iii) There is no non-application of mind in issuing the charge sheet; (iv) If it does not disclose any misconduct; (v) If it is vague; (vi) If it is based on stale allegation; and (vii) If it is iseued mala fide. ( 25 ) HERE, in the instant case, petitioner has assailed the charge sheet on the allegation of bias, non-application of mind and on the issue that it was based on stale allegation. ( 26 ) NOW, having considered the submissions of the parties and looking into the record itself, it appears to us that in the instant matter without waiting for the written statement, as directed in the memorandum, the respondent authority appointed enquiring officer in the connected matter and thereby exposing certain amount of biasness in the connected matter as normally they were required to wait for receipt of the explanation from the charged officer and thereafter to decide whether or not there is reason for the proceeding with the departmental proceeding and only in such event, the respondent authority can appoint the enquiring authority but at the time of serving with the memorandum, inviting explanation, they appointed enquiring authority in the connected matter which exposes some amount of technical bias at least in the connected matter. ( 27 ) FURTHER more mentioning of the Rules, specially sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-rule (i) of Rule 10 of West Bengal services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rule, 1971 in the memorandum dated 16. 10. 1998 exposes absolute non-application of mind. by the departmental authority in the connected matter. ( 27 ) FURTHER more mentioning of the Rules, specially sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of the proviso to sub-rule (i) of Rule 10 of West Bengal services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rule, 1971 in the memorandum dated 16. 10. 1998 exposes absolute non-application of mind. by the departmental authority in the connected matter. ( 28 ) NOW, coming to the question of stale allegation, it appears to us that inordinate and un-explained delay in issuing a charge sheet is a ground for interdicting further proceedings pursuant to such charge sheet. ( 29 ) DELAY in the connected matter is in relation to the date of the incidents which form the basis of the allegations in the charge-sheet and here in the instant case the allegation with regard to the dis-proportionate assets relates to the period between 1980-1982 and the defects in the assets statement, as it appears, were in relation to the period ranging from 1984 to 1989, but even on the face of the challenge thrown on behalf of the petitioner for initiating the departmental proceeding after a considerable period of time, from the side of the respondent authorities no steps whatsoever has been taken to explain satisfactorily to the Court/ tribunal, the reason for such delay. ( 30 ) NOW, coming to the question of delay in the instant matter, it appears to us that although the Vigilance Enquiry was initiated against the present petitioner way back on 12. 3. 1993, yet, even after initiating that enquiry, the charge sheet in the connected matter was served upon the present petitioner only in the month of October, 1998 and the allegation which was the subject matter of the Vigilance Enquiry and of the present departmental enquiry relates back to the date ranging from 1980-1982 and with regard to the disproportionate assets, it was for the period from 1984-1989, but no where any satisfactory explanation has been offered by the departmental authority that why this delay has taken place in initiating the proceeding. ( 31 ) IN such a situation, placing our utmost reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 1970 SCC page 2086 in the case of state of Punjab v. Dewan Chunilal and followed by Division Bench of calcutta High Court in (1998)1 Cal LJ at page 200 in the case of Gour narayan Baratv. ( 31 ) IN such a situation, placing our utmost reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 1970 SCC page 2086 in the case of state of Punjab v. Dewan Chunilal and followed by Division Bench of calcutta High Court in (1998)1 Cal LJ at page 200 in the case of Gour narayan Baratv. State of West Bengal, we are rather constrained to hold that respondents should not have been allowed to proceed with this departmental proceeding after a lapse of considerable period of time in connection with the present departmental proceeding as in our humble opinion, the charges brought against the petitioner have already become stale. ( 32 ) NOW, coming to the final orders passed in the connected matter, we are really surprised to see that in the connected departmental proceeding, two sets of final orders have been passed and that too without any reflection to the reply to the second show cause and more over in the notice to the second show cause issued on 3. 4. 2000 it was clearly indicated that the "impugned officer Shri Bhgolanath Banerjee, A. C. E. (C) is entitled to receive the punishment as second "show-cause" notice with direction to furnish reply as to why the punishment imposed on him will not be applied". The word 'imposed' used in the aforesaid memo dated 3. 4. 2000 leads us to conclude that at that stage of inviting reply to the second show-cause, the authority concerned already made up their mind for punishing the charged officer by imposing order of compulsory retirement, which in our opinion is against the settled norms and that was done in violation of the principles of natural justice and for such reason, the second show cause served on the petitioner suffers from incurable infirmities and therefore consequent final orders, are also vitiated, being passed not in conformity with the rules or procedure, to be followed in connection with a departmental proceeding. ( 33 ) NOW, conning to the question of dis-proportionate punishment in the connected matter, it is quite certain that normally the Court/tribunal in exercise of the power vested under the law does not interfere with the quantum of punishment alone if the charges are established against the delinquent and there is no lacuna in the procedure adopted in the departmental proceeding. But at times if the Court/tribunal feels that the punishment inflected is broadly un-just and shocks the conscience, then in appropriate cases the Court/tribunal may interfere. ( 34 ) NOW, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and also in view of our findings recorded above, it has now become almost academic to disturb the findings of the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner. But in any event in view of our findings recorded above such punishment imposed on the petitioner cannot at all stand, and the same therefore, needs to be set aside. ( 35 ) NOW, in view of what we have stated above we hold with certainty that in the instant case, there being utmost infirmities and patent illegalities in conducting the departmental proceeding, initiated against the petitioner, exposure of biasness by the respondent authority at different stages of proceeding, non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority, charges having been found to be stale in the connected matter and there also being patent illegality in issuing the second show cause notice as also in the final order. We are very much inclined to quash and set aside the Article of charges, memorandum of second show-cause, final orders and consequent order of punishment imposed upon this petitioner, imposing punishment of compulsory retirement and the entire proceeding. Consequently, we quash and set aside the Article of charge, memorandum of show-cause, final order and consequent order of punishment imposed upon this petitioner and the entire proceeding accordingly. ( 36 ) IN the result, the application succeeds. ( 37 ) THE departmental proceeding initiated against this petitioner including the charge sheet, final orders and punishment being set aside normally there should be an order re-instatement but since adequate materials are not before us to hold whether or not the petitioner has reached the normal age of superannuation, we pass this conditional order upon the respondent authority to allow the present petitioner to resume his duties forthwith if he has not already attained the age of normal superannuation and if by now he has reached the normal age of superannuation the normal admissible benefits including the retiral benefits available to the petitioner be given to the petitioner in accordance with law with utmost expedition, preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. ( 38 ) ACCORDINGLY, the matter is thus disposed of on contest but without any costs in the circumstances of this case.