JUDGMENT 1. Instant petition is directed against order of the Tribunal dated 11.05.2011 followed with subsequent order dated 29.02.2012 rejecting the second application filed for extension of time for concluding departmental enquiry against the respondent delinquent. 2. The brief facts that culled out from the averments on record and relevant for the present purpose are that the respondent initially joined service as Junior Engineer and while posted at Sriganganagar in the year 1982-85 got completed the work of MAX-I. T.E. Building and during construction the Executive Engineer & Superintending Engineer inspected the work from time to time and on completion of work after satisfying with the quality and specification on 04.06.1985, the competent authority issued the certificate. However, for the alleged delinquency he was served with the charge-sheet along with memorandum dated 16.01.2007 after almost 22 years of the alleged delinquency, which came to be served upon the delinquent on 25.01.2007 holding departmental enquiry u/R 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules,1965 and the allegation against him was that he failed to supervise the construction work of MAX-I, TE building and violated the provisions of CPWD Manual and failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty which amounts to misconduct u/R 3(1)(i)(ii) & (iii) of CCS (CCA) Conduct Rules,1964. Since there was inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary action against the respondent delinquent and his further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer was also withheld because of the pending enquiry he approached the learned Tribunal by filing Original Application-28/2007 for quashing and setting aside the enquiry proceedings initiated against him. 3. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the overall material came on record, finally arrived at the conclusion that it will be in the interest of justice to grant liberty to the respondent Union of India to conclude the enquiry initiated pursuant to memorandum dated 16.01.2007 finally within a period of six months failing which the initiation of the proceedings against him shall be deemed to be quashed and set aside and as regards his further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer is concerned, it was left open to be considered in accordance with the recruitment and promotion rules. 4. 4. Indisputably the applicant Union of India failed to conclude the enquiry within the time stipulated by the learned Tribunal in its order dated 11.05.2011 and moved MA-334/2011 and it can be noticed from the contents of the application seeking extension of time, the only reason assigned for extension was that the charge officer met with an accident on 21.05.2009 and his spinal cord was badly damaged and for the aforesaid reason the enquiry could not be completed. However, there was nothing on record that the delinquent sought time or adjournment in the pending proceedings. In counter, the respondent-delinquent present in person submits that time and again he submitted application addressed to the Enquiry Officer and to the Department to conclude the disciplinary enquiry at the earliest possible since the pendency not only jeopardise his further promotion but also withheld his retrial benefits to which he was otherwise entitled for under the law. 5. The learned Tribunal on misc. application no.334/2011 still took a lenient view and disposed of their application vide order dated 22.11.2011 granting further three months time to conclude the enquiry but this being the regular phenomenon in the Government and to maintain consistency and in a very casual and cursory manner moves further misc. application no.46/2012 seeking further extension of six months' time for conclusion of the enquiry. 6. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the material on record was not prima facie satisfied to grant further extension as prayed for and rejected their subsequent misc. application-46/2012 vide order dated 29.02.2012 and that is a subject matter of challenge in the instant proceedings. 7. 6. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the material on record was not prima facie satisfied to grant further extension as prayed for and rejected their subsequent misc. application-46/2012 vide order dated 29.02.2012 and that is a subject matter of challenge in the instant proceedings. 7. As we have noticed from the material on record that neither in the first application no.334/2011 nor in the second application no.46/2012 any reasonable justification prima facie was offered by the petitioner seeking extension of time for concluding the departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent respondent and this fact cannot be brushed aside by the Court that for the block period 1982-85 the alleged delinquency charge-sheet was served vide memorandum dated 16.01.2007 and for the inordinate delay there was no reasonable explanation furnished but even thereafter the department failed to conclude the enquiry and the prejudice caused to the respondent delinquent in the first instance was that he was not able to get documentary evidence in support of his defence obviously by passage of time of more than two decades, at the same time, after the liberty granted for extension of time to conclude the departmental enquiry initiated against the respondent delinquent no reasonable explanation came forward and to the dismay of the respondent delinquent as date of retirement is already notified and after he attained the age of superannuation and stood retired from service on 30.06.2013 and obviously on account of pending enquiry all the retrial benefits like gratuity, commutation, leave encasement etc. were withheld by the department. 8. Even before this Court no reasonable justification has been offered by the petitioner as to why the department failed to conclude the enquiry pending against the respondent delinquent initiated pursuant to memorandum dated 16.01.2007 and as regards the ailment of the respondent delinquent is concerned, it was brought to our notice that he met with an accident on 21.05.2009 and reported to duty on 27.11.2009 and thereafter he was always on duty until retirement. It is also brought to our notice that the enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry on being transferred to Delhi he was always requested to come and hold the enquiry at Jaipur despite request made by the delinquent that he is facing hardship, nothing is on record by which this Court can draw an interference about the delay which could be attributable to the respondent delinquent. 9. 9. The main thrust of submission of the petitioner is that the disciplinary enquiry is at the stage of recording the statement of defence witness and it was for the delinquent to record their statement in support of his defence and immediately within the short period the enquiry can be concluded but as regards the delay which has been caused which was inordinate and unexplainable when the charge-sheet was initially served in 2007 and even thereafter almost 7 years have rolled by and the stage of enquiry as informed to this Court no reasonable justification is forthcoming. 10. As we have already noticed that no reasonable justification came forward neither before the Tribunal nor before this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan (1998)4 SCC 154 observed that if there is an inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary enquiry and the delinquent on account of delay is being deprived of his reasonable defence which is available at his command in the facts of the given case at such belated stage that itself vitiates the enquiry. Even before this Court nothing has been brought on record that why such belated delay was caused in initiating disciplinary enquiry against the respondent delinquent. However, the learned Tribunal as already noticed above granted six months' time and extension of three months to conclude the enquiry but still when no reasonable justification came forward the Ld. Tribunal was not inclined to grant further extension as prayed for. As we have already noticed that the disciplinary proceedings stands quashed in view of the original order passed by the Tribunal while disposing of the Original Application No.28/2007 dated 11.05.2011. 11. We have heard the parties present in person and do not find any manifest apparent error in the order of the Tribunal dated 11.05.2011 & 29.02.2012 which may require interference by this Court. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. We direct the petitioners to release all his retiral benefits which was withheld because of pending disciplinary enquiry within a period of 30 days from today. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******