Zaki Ullah Khan, J.— By way of this writ petition Union of India has prayed that this Court may issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 6.3.2012 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application 798 of 2007 which is annexed as Annxure-3 to the writ petition; Union of India has also prayed that any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice be issued. 2. The respondent was awarded major penalty vide order dated 1.9.1988 by Assistant Signal and Telecom Engineer, Northern Railway (North Central Railway), Allahabad; this order was confirmed vide order dated 7.4.2009 issued by Divisional Signal & Telecom Engineer, North Central Railway, Allahabad. The respondent was posted at Fatehpur under the Chief Signal & Telecom Inspector (West) Northern Railway, Allahabad. That while working as E.S.M. Grade III at Fatehpur, respondent was served with a Memorandum of Charges with Major Penalty; that on receipt of Charge-sheet respondent submitted the reply to ASTE-1, N. Railway, Allahabad, the Disciplinary Authority; that the respondent had denied the charges levelled against him that before the charge-sheet was being issued a fact finding enquiry was conducted by the Chief Signal Inspector (West) Northern Railway, Allahabad and the relevant documents submitted that from the report of the Telegram message it was established that on 26.8.1988 at 2 : 47 hrs. UP Advance Starter Signal was failed, the respondent replaced the fuse bulbs of signal and it started functioning; that again respondent got a massage from the porter of Bindki Road Station labour failure of signal he immediately went to West Cabin and when he lowered the signal it indicated red instead of green, so there was some big fault in signal; that he came to Station and he took key of Relay Room at 5 : 50 hrs. and he opened the cabin and he saw T.R.R. and S.R. Relay were down; that the respondent immediately went to UP Advance Signal with his Khalasi and he saw that advance signal was broken and information was given by the respondent to Signal Inspector-I, Fatehpur; that he also gave a memo to R.P.F. at 5 : 50 hrs. and he opened the cabin and he saw T.R.R. and S.R. Relay were down; that the respondent immediately went to UP Advance Signal with his Khalasi and he saw that advance signal was broken and information was given by the respondent to Signal Inspector-I, Fatehpur; that he also gave a memo to R.P.F. at 5 : 50 hrs. for theft; that the charge-sheet was served on respondent and it was wrongly prepared that the fault occurred only once to save Signal Inspector-1, Bindaki Road, Fatehpur; that the respondent was put under suspension with effect from 28.8.1988 by the A.ST.E, Northern Railway, Allahabad; that the respondent made a representation and the Disciplinary Authority appointed Sri A.K. Chakravarty as Signal Inspector (D-II) Northern Railway, Allahabad as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 1.3.1989; that when no action was taken by Sri A.K. Chakravarty, Enquiry Officer in this case and thereafter, Sri M.N. Singh, A.S.T., Northern Railway, Tundla was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Senior Divisional Signal & Telecom Engineer, N. Railway, Allahabad; that the Senior D.S.T.E, N. Railway, Allahabad the Revisionary Authority further appointed another Enquiry Officer Sri Sandeep Mathuur, A.S.T.E, N. Railway, Kanpur in place of Sri M.N. Singh, A.S.T.E, Tundla; who no action was taken by Sri Sandeep Mathur, the Appellate Authority further appointed Sri A.K. Saxenk, A.S.T.E, N. Railway, Kanpur as Enquiry Officer in this case; that the enquiry was started and continued for period of more than eight years from the date of issue of charge-sheet and the Enquiry Report was submitted on 16.12.1997; that the respondent submitted his representation on 28.1.1988 against the enquiry report well within time. Then after some lapse of time Enquiry Officer imposed minor penalty of Withholding of increment temporarily for one year w.e.f. 1.4.2007; that the respondent preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal imposed the penalty w.e.f. Two months from 2.1.2007. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders at the behest of the petitioners, the respondent preferred Original Application before the CAT and the CAT pleased to allow the said Original Application and major Penalty dated 21.9.1988 is quashed and set aside the order of punishment dated 7.9.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 7.4.2007 was quashed and set aside. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders at the behest of the petitioners, the respondent preferred Original Application before the CAT and the CAT pleased to allow the said Original Application and major Penalty dated 21.9.1988 is quashed and set aside the order of punishment dated 7.9.2006 passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 7.4.2007 was quashed and set aside. The CAT has further directed the petitioners to consider the matter of promotion of the respondent to the Court of E.S.M. Grade II, E.S.M. Grade I and J.E. Grade II from the date when his juniors have been promoted. 4. The petitioners filed this present writ petition against the order passed by the Tribunal dated 6.3.2012. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued vehemently that it was the petitioner who was instrumental in causing the delay in enquiry. The enquiry could not be finalized and took about nine years because of irrational attitude of the respondent who bent on seeking repeated adjournments. The finding of the Tribunal is un-called for on it laid emphasis on undue delay in deciding the enquiry by the officers of petitions. But if the facts are scrutinized, it was the respondent who intentionally delayed the enquiry. The finding of the CAT that there has been an inordinate delay of 18 years from the date of serving charge-sheet and from the date of imposing punishment cannot be justified by the record. From the instances on re cord, the respondent did not cooperate during the enquiry. He took help of the employee as nest friend to defend him, who has been terminated. The inquiry officer rightly did not allow him to defend and this was one of the causes of the delay and that is purely on the art of the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also argued that the nature of the allegations are serious. The respondent accepted the shortcoming of giving wrong signal to the train which would have caused uncountable loss to the person and properly who were travelling by that train and also railway would have suffered unaccountable heavy losses. The accident escaped and unforeseen losses have been saved. Clearly the method adopted by petitioner was very serious. Therefore, charges which levelled against him are grave nature an delay cannot eclipse that lapse. The reason for delay has already been explained. 6. The accident escaped and unforeseen losses have been saved. Clearly the method adopted by petitioner was very serious. Therefore, charges which levelled against him are grave nature an delay cannot eclipse that lapse. The reason for delay has already been explained. 6. Learned Counsel relied on (1988) 4 SCC 154, in which the Hon'ble Court in the State of A.P. v. N. Radhakrishan, held that: Departmental Enquiry-Delay in conclusion of-when vitiates the proceedings-Held, there are no predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations-Each case has to be considered taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances-Balance has to be maintained between purity of administration and the adverse effect which the prolonged proceedings have on an employee. 7. Therefore, in aforementioned circumstances the petition is liable to be allowed and order of the CAT is liable to be pushed. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent replied that the counter-affidavit is already on record in which each and every event has been described. On 21.9.1988, charge-sheet was given to the petitioner. Five months thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed who was A.K. Chakravarti but he did not conduct the enquiry without assigning any reason; that after a lapse of six years and six months i.e. 6.9.1995, Sr. D.S.T.E, Allahabad, the Revisional Authority, vide order dated 6.9.1995 appointed Sri M.N. Singh as Enquiry Officer in railway to conduct the enquiry he also did not conduct the enquiry. One month later on 16.10.195 Sri Sandeep Sri Sandeep Mathur was appointed as Enquiry officer but he also did not conduct the enquiry. Then ten months later vide order dated 17.4.1996 D.S.T.E, Allahabad appointed Sri A.K. Saxena as Enquiry Officer, Kanpur who conducted the enquiry. Thus, after a period of seven years six months enquiry officer started the enquiry. Although the major penalty in charge-sheet was served on 21.9.1988, the present enquiry Officer took several steps and concluded the enquiry on 8.5.1999. On 11.3.1997, the enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry holding on two dates i.e. On 11.3.1997 and 4.4.1997 without providing any opportunity to the respondent. As per record, the enquiry was just a matter of two dates. Enquiry Officer submitted the report by 16.12.1997. Therefore, it too seven years and four months to conclude the enquiry on 22.12.1997. The respondent was informed about the enquiry report and asked to make a representation on 28.1.1998. As per record, the enquiry was just a matter of two dates. Enquiry Officer submitted the report by 16.12.1997. Therefore, it too seven years and four months to conclude the enquiry on 22.12.1997. The respondent was informed about the enquiry report and asked to make a representation on 28.1.1998. Respondent submitted the representation which was received by the Disciplinary Authority on 29.1.1988. The Disciplinary Authority did not take any action till 6.9.2006 and forwarded the papers to Disciplinary Authority to the ASTE/NCR. The Disciplinary Authority which is ultimately it the rank below the enquiry officer for decision of imposition of penalty. After eight years and eight months A.S.T.E, Aligharh issued penalty order imposing unavoidable minor penalty withholding of increments temporarily for one year w.e.f. 1.4.2007. Respondent preferred an appeal against the penalty order and in appeal vide order dated 7.4.2007 appellate authority allowed the punishment withholding of increments temporarily from one year to two months. Thus, it took 18 years ten months to conclude a trivial matter this shows the conduct of the petitioners. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent explained the entire facts circumstances of the case, the learned Counsel also reiterated that he relies on the same case law which has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted the same case in law in 1998 SCC (L&R) 1044, State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, as under : Departmental Enquiry Delay in conclusion of-Who vitiates the proceedings-Held, there are no predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations-Each case has to be considered taking into account all relevant facts and c ircumstnces-Balance has to be maintained between purity of administration and the adverse effect which the prolonged proceedings have of an employee-Unexplained delay conclusion of the proceedings, further held, itself is an indication of prejudice caused to the employee-Disciplinary proceedings in the present case therefore quashed-Employee directed to the promoted in accordance with recommendations of the D.P.C. 10. The learned Counsel argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the proceedings under these circumstances. 11. The learned Counsel argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed the proceedings under these circumstances. 11. In the rejoinder affidavit, learned Counsel for the petitioner only submitted that the respondent was himself responsible delay and because of his delaying tactics, the enquiry could not be concluded as he has been no cooperative since the inception of the enquiry and in order to delay he intentionally took self of P.S. Sachadeva who was a dismissed employee and Enquiry Officer was right when the did not permit him to defend the respondent.. 12. We have heard Sri A.K. Gaur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S.H. Sharma learned Counsel for the respondents and the learned A.G.A. 13. Hon'ble the Apex Court in (1988) 4 SCC 154 has held that unexplained delay in conclusion of the proceedings, further held, itself is an indications of produces cased to the employee. Disciplinary proceedings in the present case therefore quashed, 14. It is interesting to note that the Counsel of the parties are relying on the same case law an as per ration given by the Hon'ble Apex Court the delay is very material. The incident took place on 21.9.1998 immediately after inquiry was initiated and ultimately, the chapter was over by 7.4.2007 i.e. took over 18 years, 10 months to conclude the inquiry. Initially, the disciplinary authority found him guilty and imposed the punishment of one year temporarily withholding the increment which was reduced two months in the appeal. The other interesting issue to note that the inquiry officer was superior in rank than the punishing Authority D.S.T.E. conducted the inquiry and sent back to A.S.T.E. for awarding the penalty. It indicates that want prejudice would have been caused to the respondent as he has been held up and penalized for 18 years. After scrutiny at the end his act was found to be trivial and he was a warded two months temporarily withholding of the increment. 15. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the CAT and the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent is entitled for all benefits as per its order. 16. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. _____________