ORDER In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.09.2005 passed by the Project Officer, North Tisra Colliery by which a punishment of recovery of Rs. 62,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and demotion to the next lower grade i.e., from Grade I to Grade II has been imposed. 2. The petitioner in the year 1995 was posted as Assistant Store Keeper in Alkusha Colliery, Kustore area no. 9, of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'BCCL'), Dhanbad. The petitioner was deputed to bring 102 meters of S.D.L. Cable which was needed by Alkusha Colliery from the Regional Store, Kustore. On 14.08.1995, the required S.D.L. Cable was brought from Ekra Central Store to Kustore Regional Store and thereafter the same was issued to Alkusha Colliery on same day. With respect to the incident of 14.08.1995, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet vide letter issued by the Project Officer/Agent (respondent no. 2) dated 18.12.2000 in which the petitioner was charged with the act of misconduct and negligence of duty on account of the fact that although the petitioner had collected 102 meters of type 7 S.D.L. Cable from the Regional Store, Kustore, but on opening it was found to contain only 37.20 meters of Cable which was short by about 62.70 meters worth Rs. 62,000/-. Reply was submitted by the petitioner on 25.12.2000 and thereafter notice of inquiry was served upon him dated 23.03.2001 fixing the date of inquiry as 06.04.2001. Another notice of inquiry dated 06.04.2001 was issued to the petitioner fixing the date of inquiry as 30.04.2001. On completion of the inquiry, an inquiry report dated 10.07.2001 was submitted in which the charges against the petitioner in terms of Clause 26.1.2 of the Certified Standing Orders for Workmen of Establishments under BCCL was found proved. The petitioner was served with a second show-cause notice on 01.09.2005 on which the petitioner was inflicted with a punishment of recovery of Rs. 62,000/- in 12 equal installments from his salary and demotion to the next lower grade i.e., from Grade I to Grade II. 3. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents – BCCL. 4. 62,000/- in 12 equal installments from his salary and demotion to the next lower grade i.e., from Grade I to Grade II. 3. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sharad Kaushal, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents – BCCL. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the departmental proceeding including the inquiry which was conducted on the charge served upon the petitioner was illegal, perverse and perfunctory in nature. It has been submitted that the petitioner in his capacity of Assistant Store Keeper in Alkusha Colliery, Kustore area no. 9 M/s BCCL, Dhanbad was deputed to bring 102 meters of S.D.L. Cable on 14.08.1995 for which a requisition was given to bring the said materials from Regional Store, Kustore. It has been submitted that since the material was not available at Regional Store, Kustore, the same was brought from Ekra Central Store from where it was transmitted subsequently on the same date to Alkusha Colliery. It has been submitted that the material which was brought by the petitioner was in a sealed condition for which an entry was also made on 14.08.1995 and the seal was opened in the presence of the Manager and Store Keeper of Alkusha Colliery whereupon the same was found to be short by 62.70 meters which was worth Rs. 62,000/-. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in the inquiry report, the contention of the petitioner has been substantiated by the statement of the witnesses, but without specifying the reasons the inquiry officer had come to a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. It has also been submitted that the inquiry officer had implicated the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not able to prove his innocence. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that it was for the respondents to prove the charges in the inquiry proceeding, but the inquiry officer had taken a contrary stand to the settled principle of law fixing responsibility upon the petitioner for not being able to disprove the charges levelled against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that it was for the respondents to prove the charges in the inquiry proceeding, but the inquiry officer had taken a contrary stand to the settled principle of law fixing responsibility upon the petitioner for not being able to disprove the charges levelled against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner further adds that Clause 26.1.2 of the Certified Standing Orders relates to minor punishment, but the petitioner has been imposed a major punishment of recovery of the alleged loss caused to the company as well as demoting him from Grade I to Grade II. Adding further the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire departmental proceeding is vitiated solely for the reason that although the incident is said to have taken place on 14.08.1995, the memo of charge was served upon the petitioner after more than 5 years and on conclusion of the inquiry, the second show-cause notice was issued on 01.09.2005 and therefore, it has been submitted that from the date of the alleged incident till the date of issuance of the order of punishment more than 10 years had lapsed and no explanation had been given by the respondents with respect to the inordinate delay and such delay has for obvious reasons caused great prejudice to the petitioner. Continuing with his argument, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if it is assumed that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved, in such circumstances also the punishment imposed is highly disproportionate and is contrary to Clause 26.1.2 of the Certified Standing Orders. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in course of inquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner with respect to shortage of 62.7 meters of S.D.L. Cable worth Rs. 62,000/- was found to have been proved and since it was the petitioner who had brought the Cable from Ekra Colliery and was involved throughout in transmitting the said Cable, responsibility has rightly been fixed on the petitioner for misconduct and dereliction of duty. It has also been submitted that the punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner is in commensuration with the charges levelled against him as on account of the dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, the company was caused a loss of Rs. 62,000/-. 6. It has also been submitted that the punishment which has been imposed upon the petitioner is in commensuration with the charges levelled against him as on account of the dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner, the company was caused a loss of Rs. 62,000/-. 6. The inquiry report which has been brought on record by the petitioner signifies the fact that the inquiry officer did not properly consider the factual aspects with respect to breaking/non-breaking of the seal of the Cable as it has been reflected in the statement of the witnesses adduced on behalf of the management as well as on behalf of the petitioner that the seal of the Cable was broken open and thereafter it was found that the Cable was short by 62.7 meters. The questions which had been put forward to the petitioner and his witnesses have been dealt with in a most casual manner which shows non-application of mind on the part of the concerned inquiry officer, inasmuch as, nothing has been discussed with respect to the explanation of the petitioner and his witnesses and it has merely been mentioned that the statement of the petitioner as well as his witnesses reveals that there was a dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the charge which was framed for the act of misconduct with respect to negligence of duty as indicated in the letter dated 18.12.2000 is with respect to Clause 26.1.2 of the Certified Standing Orders which reads thus: “26.1.2 Habitual Negligence of neglect or duty, malingering slowing down of work or inciting other to do so.” 7. None of the documents which had been served upon the petitioner in course of the departmental proceeding including the order of punishment dated 9/10.09.2005 mentions about the fact that the petitioner was habitually negligent in performing his duty and in such circumstances the respondents have failed to substantiate the charge in terms of Clause 26.1.2 of the Certified Standing Orders. The requisition of the Cable with respect to which the petitioner was subsequently charged was made on 14.08.1995 and the departmental proceeding culminated in imposing the order of punishment upon the petitioner on 10.09.2005 and for 10 years the departmental proceeding continued intermittently which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. The requisition of the Cable with respect to which the petitioner was subsequently charged was made on 14.08.1995 and the departmental proceeding culminated in imposing the order of punishment upon the petitioner on 10.09.2005 and for 10 years the departmental proceeding continued intermittently which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. The learned counsel in this context has referred to certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a reference of which is being made in the following paragraphs. 8. In the case of “M.V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India & Ors.” reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 , it was held that “the tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into consideration that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after 6 years and continued for a period of 7 years and thus, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after such a long time evidently prejudiced the delinquent officer.” 9. In the case of “P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Managing Director., T.N. Housing Board” reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 , it was held as follows : 7. “The very same ground has been specifically raised in this appeal before this Court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedings as made in the writ petition. 11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.” 10. In the case of “Union of India & Ors. Vs. J. Ahmed” reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286 , while interpreting as to whether an inference of negligence is drawn and whether the same would constitute a misconduct and it was held as follows : “But in any case, failure to attain the high standard of efficiency in performance of duty permitting an inference of negligence would not constitute misconduct nor for the purpose of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules as would indicate lack of devotion to duty.” 11. In the present case also the departmental proceeding although was initiated on 18.12.2000 for an occurrence said to have been taken place on 14.08.1995 and the inquiry which was conducted culminated in submission of the inquiry report dated 10.07.2001, but for more than 5 years, no action was taken on the said inquiry report and only on 01.09.2005 the second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order of punishment was passed on 10.09.2005. Thus, the entire duration from the starting point of the incident consumed more then 10 years in concluding the same. The inquiry as has been stated above also has been done in a perfunctory manner which is apparent from the very face of it. The respondents had thus taken a lackadaisical approach to the entire proceedings and without there being any concrete proof with respect to the involvement of the petitioner in connection to 62.7 meters of Cable found short, respondent no. 2 could not have inflicted an order of punishment. The respondents had thus taken a lackadaisical approach to the entire proceedings and without there being any concrete proof with respect to the involvement of the petitioner in connection to 62.7 meters of Cable found short, respondent no. 2 could not have inflicted an order of punishment. Moreover, the entire basis for initiation of the departmental proceedings was Clause 26.1.2 of the Certified Standing Orders but the respondents have not been able to prove that the petitioner was habitually negligent in duty as no iota of evidence or any mention about the said fact has been indicated in any of the communications made by the respondents in connection with the departmental proceedings and in such circumstances also the proceedings seems to have been conducted in a manner which has caused prejudice to the petitioner and resultantly the impugned order dated 10.09.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the order dated 10.09.2005 passed by the Project Officer, North Tisra Colliery (respondent no. 2) by which a punishment of recovery of Rs. 62,000/- in 12 equal installments from the salary of the petitioner and demotion to the next lower grade i.e., from Grade I to Grade II was inflicted is hereby quashed. 13. If the recovery has been effected then the amount recovered shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Application allowed.