JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench Allahabad by which the Original Application filed by the respondent No. 1 for quashing the charge-sheets was allowed and a direction was issued to pay all the pensionary benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The respondent No. 1 Sri Upendra Kumar Jain was serving as a Joint Controller in the Ordnance Factory at Dehradun when he was served with two charge-sheets dated 3rd December, 2001 and 19th December, 2001 relating to misdemeanors in 1994 and 1997, regarding forwarding inspection reports of faulty equipments to his superiors as a result of which the faulty equipments were accepted. The Tribunal observed that though the applicant was to superannuate on 31st December, 2001 but just a few days before his superannuation, the charge-sheets were issued to him even though in January, 1999 inquiry was conducted and steps could have been taken then. The Tribunal, therefore, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another, AIR 1990 SC 1308 quashed the charge-sheets dated 3rd December, 2001 and 19th December, 2001. 3. Sri Satish Chaturvedi learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the gravity of the charges but has quashed the charges merely on the ground of delay and in support of his contention he has placed reliance upon a decision rendered by us in Union of India and another v. Ravindra Nath Tripathi and others, 2006 (3) ESC 1584 . 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Ashok Kacker, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 180 clearly held in a matter where the employee had challenged the charge-sheet that the Tribunal entertained the application at a premature stage. It was observed as follows : "............In our opinion, this was not the stage at which the Tribunal ought to have entertained such an application for quashing the charge-sheet and the appropriate course for the respondent to adopt is to file his reply to the charge-sheet and invite the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. It was observed as follows : "............In our opinion, this was not the stage at which the Tribunal ought to have entertained such an application for quashing the charge-sheet and the appropriate course for the respondent to adopt is to file his reply to the charge-sheet and invite the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. This being the stage at which the respondent had rushed to the Tribunal, we do not consider it necessary to require the Tribunal at this stage to examine any other point which may be available to the respondent or which may have been raised by him.” 5. In Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department v. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157 the Supreme Court set-aside the order of the Tribunal by which the departmental enquiry and the charge-sheet were quashed on the ground of delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and it was observed as follows : "Order dated 12.11.1993 in Nos. 1702 of 1993 and 2206 of 1993 of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras is in question before us. The respondent while working as Assistant Section Officer, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department had been placed under suspension. Departmental inquiry is in process. We are informed that charge-sheet was laid for prosecution for the offences of embezzlement and fabrication of false records etc. and that the offences and the trial of the case is pending. The Tribunal had set aside the departmental enquiry and quashed the charge on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. In the nature of the charge, it would take a long time to detect embezzlement and fabrication of false records which should be done in secrecy. It is not necessary to go into the merits and record any finding on the charge levelled against the charged officer since any finding recorded by this Court would gravely prejudice the case of the parties at the enquiry and also at the trial. Therefore, we desist from expressing any opinion on merit or recording any of the contentions raised by the counsel on either side. Suffice it to state that the Administrative Tribunal has committed grossest error in its exercise of the judicial review. The member of the Administrative Tribunal appears to have no knowledge of the jurisprudence of the service law and exercised power as if he is an appellate forum dehors the limitation of judicial review. Suffice it to state that the Administrative Tribunal has committed grossest error in its exercise of the judicial review. The member of the Administrative Tribunal appears to have no knowledge of the jurisprudence of the service law and exercised power as if he is an appellate forum dehors the limitation of judicial review. This is one such instance where a member had exceeded his power of judicial review in quashing the suspension order and charges even at the threshold. We are coming across such orders frequently putting heavy pressure on this Court to examine each case in detail. It is high time that it is remedied.” (emphasis supplied) 6. It must also be remembered that it is a settled legal proposition of law that even if the inquiry is initiated at a belated stage or there is a delay in the conclusion of the inquiry within a reasonable period the Court/Tribunal should not quash the charges without considering the gravity of the charges. Thus, the facts and circumstances of a particular case have to be examined and only after considering the gravity/magnitude of the charges the order should be passed. In this connection reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 and Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Faizabad v. Sachindra Nath Pandey and others, (1995) 3 SCC 134 . Thus, while entertaining the submissions that inquiry should not be proceeded with such charge sheet which had been issued at a belated stage or the inquiry stood vitiated on account of the inaction of the employer, the Court has to consider the seriousness and magnitude of the charges and while doing so the Court must “weigh all the facts, both for and against the delinquent officers and come to the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstances”. 7. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : "It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where is a 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. 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 to balance and weight then to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay......” (Emphasis added) 8. A similar view has been reiterated in Food Corporation of India Ltd. v. V.P. Bhatia (1998) 8 SCC 131. 9. These decisions were taken into consideration by us in Ravindra Nath Tripathi and others, (supra). 10. In the present case, it would be seen that a preliminary investigation/inquiry against Sri Jain had begun in the year 1997 and continued till January, 1999. The charge-sheets were then issued in the year 2001. The Tribunal had not at all addressed itself to the seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner and has merely proceeded on the basis that no explanation had been given for the delay in issuing the charge-sheets. The decisions referred to above clearly hold that it is the gravity of the charges which has to be taken into consideration. In fact, the Court has to be taken into consideration all the relevant factors to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be quashed because of delay. 11. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 26th April, 2002 is set aside. ———