JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner who was removed from service by order dated 24.09.1999 pursuant to a departmental proceeding on various charges, has put to challenge the said order by filing the instant writ petition after nearly 10 years of the said order. On being asked about the cause of delay of 10 years, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to explain the same in reference to the averments made in paragraph-12 of the writ petition. In the said paragraph it has been stated that the petitioner did not challenge the impugned order of removal from service in view of the pendency of a criminal case in which judgment of acquittal was passed on 28.03.2008. As to whether the very pendency of the criminal proceeding can debar initiation and finalization of the departmental proceeding and on conclusion of the same whether a penalty can be imposed and whether the delinquent can wait till the outcome of the criminal proceeding, will be discussed a little later. 2. The petitioner has a chequered history of his service career. He had joined as Lower Division Assistant -cum-Typist in the establishment of the respondent No. 2, i.e. the District and Sessions Judge, Hailakandi on 22.11.1992. He was discharged from service by order dated 05.01.1994 on the basis of certain allegations against him. He filed a writ petition being CR No. 352/1994 challenging the order of termination. On the basis of the judgment passed in the writ petition, he was reinstated in service on 01.11.1994. 3. In the year 1995 and to be precise on 18.01.1995, a fresh proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of certain allegations. Thereafter he was dismissed from service on 22.02.1995. The challenge put to the said order of dismissal from service vide writ petition being CR No. 4231/1995 was unsuccessful inasmuch as the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 24.04.1997. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was temporarily appointed in the establishment as LDA-cum-Typist clearly stipulating that same would be subject to the outcome of the judgment in the pending writ petition. Thus, naturally with the dismissal of the writ petition, the service of the petitioner was to be terminated. However, in the meantime fresh proceeding was initiated against him. He was placed under suspension by order dated 16.03.1999. Thus, naturally with the dismissal of the writ petition, the service of the petitioner was to be terminated. However, in the meantime fresh proceeding was initiated against him. He was placed under suspension by order dated 16.03.1999. Thereafter, he was served with the charge sheet dated 16.03.1999 levelling the following charges: Charges: 1. That after rejection of your petition dated 25.02.99 praying for earned leave for 30 days with effect from 01.03.99 to 30.03.99 you were asked vide this office order No. 19 dated 01.03.99 for want of requisite particulars, you were asked to resume duties immediately further directing to furnish reasonable cause for unauthorized absent in the office from 27.02.99 and till resumption of duties and sent on the same date through Dak Book but you were not found present in your house and the inmates of your house refused to receive it on the plea that you had gone to Guwahati without seeking prior permission to leave the headquarters from this end. 2. That the said rejection order was sent vide this office order No. 20 dated 04.03.99 by registered post but the same was neither received by any inmate of your house nor it could be delivered endorsing in the cover of the letter that you were absent and a notice in this regard was also endorsed "not claimed". 3. That for giving coverage of your flouting of the aforesaid orders you, by adopting falsehood, sent an ante-dated letter giving date as on 01.03.99 by forwarding the same by another letter dated 05.03.99 seeking medical leave from 01.03.99 to 31.03.99 falsely stating that you sent it by your younger brother to the office when the Sheristadar refused to receive it which was not a fact and the same also contradicts your previous petition for earned leave. A false medical certificate was also enclosed with that medical leave petition and the same was rejected for adopting the above falsehood. 4. That there was a news caption published in the "Dainik Sonar Cachar" dated 12th March, 99 that you were involved in some criminal offences U/Ss 419/420/468 IPC and huge incriminating materials were recovered from your house by raid when you were found absconded and the matter was on investigation. 4. That there was a news caption published in the "Dainik Sonar Cachar" dated 12th March, 99 that you were involved in some criminal offences U/Ss 419/420/468 IPC and huge incriminating materials were recovered from your house by raid when you were found absconded and the matter was on investigation. Another claim case in the District Consumers Form, Hailakindi was instituted by one Kripapani Bhattacharjee of Lakhisohor, Hailakandi, stating that you realized a substantial amount from that person for wrongful gain as a Govt. servant and the petition further bears some money receipts showing to realize a substantial amount by issuing receipts of your own hand. Such profiteering business violates the service rules and the official norms since the same was done without the knowledge of the undersigned which you cannot do as a Govt. servant. 5. That it appears from official records that previously your service was terminated by learned Predecessor Mr. S.K. Kar for your gross misconduct against which you directly preferred a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and during pendency of the same learned Predecessor Mr. G.M. Paul very graciously appointed you in a vacant post of this establishment subject to termination of your service without assigning any reason or as per decision of the Hon'ble High Court in your writ petition, and again you are found flouting the orders of the under signed as asserted above which is clear insubordination and gross misconduct on your part. 5. In response to the charges leveled against him, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 15.05.99. Being not satisfied with the reply furnished by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority conducted a departmental enquiry in which the enquiry officer found all the charges against the petitioner to have been established. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of removal from service by the impugned order dated 24.09.99 (Annexure-8) followed by his release order dated 24.09.99 (Annexure-9). 6. After the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioner slept over the matter and did not make any challenge to the same. Long 10 years thereafter he filed the instant writ petition challenging the said order. The only explanation furnished, as noted above, is in paragraph-12 of the writ petition in which a statement has been made that the petitioner did not challenge the order of removal from service due to pendency of the criminal case being GR Case No. 130/99. 7. Long 10 years thereafter he filed the instant writ petition challenging the said order. The only explanation furnished, as noted above, is in paragraph-12 of the writ petition in which a statement has been made that the petitioner did not challenge the order of removal from service due to pendency of the criminal case being GR Case No. 130/99. 7. As to what were the charges against the petitioner has been noted above. It ranges from unauthorized absence from duty, insubordination and involvement in criminal case to service being dispensable in terms of the offer of appointment made, etc. The criminal case was not relating to the charges other than the charge No. 4 in which his involvement in criminal case being offence under Section 419 / 420 / 468 IPC was indicted. 8. In the above position, the plea of the petitioner that he did not file the writ petition because of the pendency of the criminal case, does not explain the delay and latches in challenging the order of removal impugned in the writ petition. Needless to say that mere pendency of a criminal case does not debar the disciplinary authority to proceed against a delinquent with a departmental proceeding. Needless also to say that there is no absolute rule that the departmental proceeding must be stayed during the pendency of the criminal case. If any authority is required in this regard, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Apex Court as reported in (1996) 6 SCC 417 (State of Rajasthan vs. B.K. Meena and ors.); (2004) 6 SCC 482 (Allahabad District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Vidhya Varidh Mishra); (2001) 6 SCC 584 (K.C. Sareen Vs. CBI, Chandigarh) and (1996) 6 SCC 455 (State of Karnataka and anr. Vs. T. Venkataramanappa) 9. Above apart and as noted above, the charges in the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding were not based on the same set of facts and they were completely different. There is no explanation whatsoever in the writ petition about the cause of delay in filing the writ petition. As has been held by the Apex Court in Rantan Chandra Sammanta and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2276 , a writ is issued in favour of a person who has some right and not for sake of roving enquiry leaving scope for maneuvering. As has been held by the Apex Court in Rantan Chandra Sammanta and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. reported in AIR 1993 SC 2276 , a writ is issued in favour of a person who has some right and not for sake of roving enquiry leaving scope for maneuvering. Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. 10. In the said case the petitioner a retrenched employee claimed for same benefit like that of the other retrenched railway employees. However, having regard to the fact that there was delay of 15 years, the Apex Court declined to grant the relief to the petitioner. Irrespective of delay in filing the writ petition, we have considered the case of the petitioner on merit as well. There is no allegation of any procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry proceeding. In the departmental proceeding the petitioner duly participated and on the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service. 11. Even otherwise also, the service of the petitioner was to be dispensed with in terms of his condition of appointment which was subject to the outcome of the writ petition being CR No. 4231/95 in which his earlier order of dismissal from service was under challenge. It was during the pendency of the writ petition, he was reappointed temporarily with the clear stipulation that his such appointment would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The writ petition having been dismissed, the service of the petitioner was, even otherwise also liable to be dispensed with. 12. Mr. HRA Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the enquiry report, he could not make representation against the same and the same deprived him of his right of reasonable opportunity of being heard. 13. We have considered this submission in the light of the prejudice, if any, that has been shown by the petitioner. Except the statement that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner, there is no whisper as to how the same caused any prejudice to him. In absence of any prejudice shown, mere non furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report, may not lead to irresistible inference that the petitioner's defence was grossly prejudiced. 14. Except the statement that a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner, there is no whisper as to how the same caused any prejudice to him. In absence of any prejudice shown, mere non furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report, may not lead to irresistible inference that the petitioner's defence was grossly prejudiced. 14. Above aspect of the matter will also have be considered in the touch tone of the attending facts and circumstances recorded above. From the very inception of the service of the petitioner, it has been the story of the continuous litigation. Challenging the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition being CR No. 4231/95. The said writ petition was dismissed upholding the order of dismissal from service. That being the position, even otherwise also his service was liable to be dispensed with. However, the incumbent District and Session Judge favoured him with the appointment with a clear stipulation that his such appointment would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The petitioner could not avail the opportunity given to him and again indulged in misconduct attributed to him through the aforementioned charges. The charges having been established in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service by the impugned order dated 24.09.1999. Long 10 years thereafter, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court. In the meantime, 3rd party right might have also accrued. 15. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.