Judgment :- M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, by which the punishment imposed on the respondent was set aside. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge was wrong in taking into consideration of the order passed in the review application. There is no vested right on the part of the respondent to file the review. The review itself has been filed belatedly. There is also a delay on the part of the respondent. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal will have to be allowed. 3. We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. The appellants have not filed any counter affidavit explaining the delay on their part. The delay is at the time of initiation and thereafter, continuance. Even though, we are aware of the legal position that a mere delay by itself cannot be a ground to quash the disciplinary proceedings, the facts of the case do not warrant any interference, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we do not want to deal with this further, except extracting the relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which speaks for itself: "Thus the principles which is deducible from the above decisions are that when, there was a delay in initiation or finalizing the disciplinary proceedings for a long time and is prejudicial to the delinquent officer, on that ground the Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. From the facts of the present case, it is seen that admittedly the allegation related to preparation of certain estimates during 1983-1984. It is after a period of four years, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 21.12.1998. It is after seven years on 27-01-1995, the report by the Tribunal on disciplinary was submitted. The report was communicated to the petitioner by the Chief Engineer on 15-09-1995 i.e., after nearly eight months from the date of the submission of the report. Thereafter, for nearly five years no action has been taken and the order of punishment was imposed on 13.10.2000." There is no contra-material to hold otherwise, in favour of the appellants. 4. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.