Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 776 (GUJ)

Udhdhavdas A. Narsinghani v. State of Gujarat

2016-04-07

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2016
JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a retired engineer, has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the first charge-sheet dated 14.9.2000 and the second charge-sheet dated 27.11.2000 and to further quash and set aside the departmental inquiry if any contemplated against the petitioner. (B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to release forthwith the retirement benefits due to the petitioner on his retirement on 30.11.2000 and to further make immediate payment of gratuity and commuted pension to the petitioner. (C) That Your Lordships may be pleased to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the two charge-sheets dated 14-9-2000 and 27.11.2000 after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 7 years and 15 years respectively as illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, null and void. (D) Pending the final hearing and disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of the charge sheet dated 14.9.2000 and the charge-sheet dated 27.11.2000 and to further stay the departmental inquiry contemplated against he petitioner with respect to the said two charge sheets. (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass such other and further orders in the interest of justice. (F) Your Lordships may be pleased to award costs of this petition to the petitioner." 2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under:- 2.1 On 29.7.1964, the Executive Engineer, Ahmedabad Roads & Buildings Department of the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Gujarat, appointed the petitioner as a supervisor and placed him on the work charged establishment for a period of one month in the then prevailing pay scale. 2.2 The Superintending Engineer, Ahmedabad (PWD), by his letter addressed to the Chief Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Ahmedabad conveyed that one Shri S.J. Mehta and the petitioner were interviewed on 1.9.1964 and were selected for the post of the supervisor with the work charged establishment and, therefore, they may be continued in service until further orders. 2.2 The Superintending Engineer, Ahmedabad (PWD), by his letter addressed to the Chief Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Ahmedabad conveyed that one Shri S.J. Mehta and the petitioner were interviewed on 1.9.1964 and were selected for the post of the supervisor with the work charged establishment and, therefore, they may be continued in service until further orders. 2.3 By an order dated 25.2.1970, the petitioner was taken up on the temporary establishment from the work charged establishment. 2.4 On 30th November, 2000, he retired from the service. 2.5 On 21.6.2000, a charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner by the respondents alleging that he had used inferior quality of cement in one of the projects in the Dholka Sub-Division. The reply to the said charge-sheet was filed on 29.6.2000. The petitioner clarified that, at no point of time, he was posted in the Dholka Sub-Division and, therefore, the charge-sheet was absolutely misconceived. 2.6 On 14.9.2000, a modified charge-sheet of the earlier charge-sheet dated 21.6.2000 came to be issued to the petitioner. In the modified charge-sheet, it was alleged that he had used inferior quality of cement in the year 1993 in connection with one of the projects while he was at the Viramgam Sub-Division. 2.7 The petitioner replied to the said charge-sheet and clarified his stance. It is the case of the petitioner that, in fact, he had brought to the notice of the Special Secretary by letter dated 2nd February, 1993 that the cement which was purchased in the Viramgam Sub-Division was of an inferior quality. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had addressed a letter dated 17th February, 1993 to the Executive Engineer to provide good quality of the cement. However, the request of the petitioner was declined and the Executive Engineer decided to use the very same inferior quality of the cement at the Viramgam Sub-Division. 2.8 It appears that the Executive Engineer was served with a charge-sheet in that regard. The departmental inquiry was initiated. During the pendency of the departmental inquiry, the Executive Engineer retired, i.e. in the year 1988. The Executive Engineer was found guilty and a penalty of deduction of Rs. 100 from his pension for a period of six months was imposed. The departmental inquiry was initiated. During the pendency of the departmental inquiry, the Executive Engineer retired, i.e. in the year 1988. The Executive Engineer was found guilty and a penalty of deduction of Rs. 100 from his pension for a period of six months was imposed. Thus, it is evident that a minor penalty was imposed by the respondents against the superior authority of the petitioner, i.e. the Executive Engineer who was in-charge of the Viramgam Sub-Division at the relevant time. 2.9 On 27.11.2000, a fresh charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner with the allegations that between 1985 and 1988, some irregularities were committed in connection with the purchase of sanitary and miscellaneous building materials by the petitioner. The second charge was regarding the maintenance of the purchase register by the petitioner in the year 1985. 2.10 The petitioner has filed this petition challenging both, the charge-sheets and the action on the part of the respondents in initiating the departmental inquiry at the fag end of his service. 3. Mr. Hemang Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first charge sheet dated 21.6.2000 and 14.9.2000 respectively relates to the incident of 1993. The second charge sheet dated 27.11.2000 relates to the incident of 1985. 4. He submitted that there is a delay of seven years in issuing the first charge sheet, and 15 years in issuing the second charge sheet. He submitted that no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the respondents for such inordinate delay in issuing the two charge sheets. 5. Mr. Shah submitted that the respondents have proceeded against his client with malice and the entire action is mala-fide. The second charge sheet dated 27.11.2000 was issued just few hours before he attained superannuation on 30th November, 2000. 6. Mr. Shah submitted that so far as the first charge sheet is concerned, the superior of the petitioner was already proceeded departmentally and was found to be guilty of using the inferior quality of the cement. Mr. Shah submitted that such inquiry was initiated relying on the letter which was addressed by the petitioner regarding the supply of the inferior quality of the cement. He submitted that both the charge-sheets deserve to be quashed and the inquiries also should be dropped. 7. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by the learned AGP appearing for the State-respondents. 8. He submitted that both the charge-sheets deserve to be quashed and the inquiries also should be dropped. 7. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by the learned AGP appearing for the State-respondents. 8. The learned AGP submitted that no case is made out for dropping of the two inquiries. The learned AGP has relied on the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply; "3. I say and submit that the present petition is preferred against the charge sheet dated 14.9.2000 and second charge sheet dated 27.11.2000 and further praying for direction to quash and set aside the departmental inquiry as the same is contemplated against the petitioner. The case of the respondent is that a complaint came to be made against the petitioner-delinquent and issued a charge sheet dated 27.11.2000. Charge sheet dated 21.6.2000 for the incident which occurred in the year 1993. Thereafter some error was found to be modified after considering the representation made by the petitioner and the modified charge sheet came to be issued on 14.9.2000. The petitioner produced defense statement on 17.10.2000 and 1.11.2000. The State Government has taken decision with regard to the inquiry officer to whom the departmental inquiry is required to be entrusted but before the said departmental inquiry can be entrusted to the inquiry officer for taking into consideration the charge sheet and the defense statement filed by the petitioner, the present petition came to be filed and stay order has been obtained in the said matter. Thus pursuant to the direction of this Hon'ble Court staying further proceedings, the departmental inquiry is not been proceeded with. 4. I say and submit that with regard to the charge sheet dated 27.11.2000 a complaint came to be received against the irregularities committed by certain officers on 26.11.1990. Preliminary inquiry was conducted with regard to the allegations made in complaint dated 26.11.1990 and report was sought for from the Superintending Engineer vide communication dated 22.2.1991. It was decided that the matter was required to be examined by Quality Control Division and accordingly the same was entrusted vide communication dated 24.1.1991. Further communications came to be issued from time to time to the concerned department including the Quality Control Division Rajkot, Executive Engineer Stores Division, Ahmedabad etc. Apart of the preliminary inquiry, report was received from the Quality Control Division Rajkot on 30.12.1993. Further communications came to be issued from time to time to the concerned department including the Quality Control Division Rajkot, Executive Engineer Stores Division, Ahmedabad etc. Apart of the preliminary inquiry, report was received from the Quality Control Division Rajkot on 30.12.1993. However, the details were sought for by the Roads and Buildings Department with regard to the preliminary inquiry report and accordingly on 25.9.1995 complete report with regard to the irregularities committed by the department and other officers were deemed Detailed explanations were sought for from communication dated 16.10.1997. The delinquent officers at various stages tendered their replies to the same. However the present petitioner did not tender any clarification with regard to the communication dated 5.5.1997. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure I is a copy of the said communication seeking explanation from the present petitioner. The present petitioner has till date not replied to the communication dated 5.5.1997 and thus after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner and waiting for sufficient amount of time for receiving his explanation, if any, to the irregularities alleged to have been committed by him, the matter was entrusted to Vigilance Commission on 11.10.1999. Vigilance Commission recommended the petitioner and other officers be charge sheeted on 5.11.1999 and thus as the case involving joint inquiry of 35 delinquent officers, decision came to be taken to charge sheet the present petitioner. On 18.11.2000 Executive Engineer completed all the details required for charge-sheeting the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner came to be charge sheeted on 27.11.2000. As regards the charge sheet dated 21.6.2000 and modified on 14.9.2000 for the incident which occurred some time in the year 1993 the case of the respondent is that a complaint came to be received on 5.6.1993 against some irregularities committed by the officers in Panchayat Roads and Building Department on 26.11.1993 preliminary inquiry was entrusted to Superintending Engineer on 2.8.1994, the Superintending Engineer submitted his preliminary report with regard to the same Explanations were sought for on the preliminary inquiry and the report was tendered by the Superintending Engineer and clarification with regard to the same finally received on 9.1.1995. The matter was entrusted to the Vigilance Commission on 3.6.1995 and the Vigilance Commission sought for further explanation from the concerned department on 22.6.1995. Consequently the respondents sought for further explanation from the Superintending Engineer. The matter was entrusted to the Vigilance Commission on 3.6.1995 and the Vigilance Commission sought for further explanation from the concerned department on 22.6.1995. Consequently the respondents sought for further explanation from the Superintending Engineer. Vigilance Commission directed that two Executive Engineers and one Deputy Executive Engineer be charge sheeted. After considering the inquiry report against two Executive Engineers and Deputy Executive Engineers, on 5.3.1990 the responsibility with regard to the irregularities committed was fastened on other delinquent officers and thus charge sheet came to be issued against the petitioner and other delinquent officers at various dates. The Superintending Engineer reported that the liability be fastened on the petitioner only on 20.1.2000 and accordingly the petitioner was charge sheeted on 21.6.2000. However, after considering the representation made by the petitioner as there seems some error in the charge sheet, the same was modified on 14.9.2000. Thus the case of the respondent is that the delay which has occurred in issuing the charge sheet has been due to the magnitude of the inquiry which is required to be conducted involving more than 40 persons and the requirement of fastening the specific liability on each and every delinquent, require detailed examination by the concerned department such as Vigilance Commission, Quality Control Division, Superintending Engineer etc. 5. I say and submit that the case of the petitioner is that he has been deprived of his retirement benefits and charge sheet has been issued to deprive him the said benefits. The said fact is contrary to the record. The petitioner is entitled to receive 100% provisional pension full pension) and the same has been granted to him vide order dated 18.1.2001. Moreover, petitioner's leave encashment benefit of Rs. 1,39,396/- has already been granted to him vide order dated 10.01.2001 and a sum of Rs. 60,260/- has also been given on 10.1.2001 being amount due and payable to him for group insurance. Thus the petitioner's averment that his retirement benefits have been deprived of is not true. Only on amount of retirement benefits (gratuity) are withheld as per the provisions of Bombay Civil Services Rules 189(b) read with Rule 189A. Copy of the said Rule is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure - II to this affidavit in reply. Hence, withholding of Death cum retirement Benefit is in accordance with the statutory Rule. Only on amount of retirement benefits (gratuity) are withheld as per the provisions of Bombay Civil Services Rules 189(b) read with Rule 189A. Copy of the said Rule is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure - II to this affidavit in reply. Hence, withholding of Death cum retirement Benefit is in accordance with the statutory Rule. Hence, no infringement of Article of Constitution of India as alleged in the petition." 9. The learned AGP has also placed reliance on one affidavit-in-reply, duly affirmed by the Under secretary, Roads & Buildings Department, inter alia, stating as under: "6. It is submitted that I would like to explain the circumstances under which charge sheet dated 21.06.2000 was served. It is submitted that in the year 1993 i.e. on 05.06.1993, an NGO namely Gujarat Grahak Suraksha Mandal raised the complaint before the office of the Vigilance Commission, State of Gujarat, complaining that the 2000 tones of cement purchased and used by the Executive Engineer, Panchayat R&B Division No. 1 and 2, Ahmedabad, as well as Irrigation Division, was of inferior quality. The said NGO has alleged in the complaint that when the samples of cement were tested by the Government approved laboratory, the test results were found negative, mentioning that the cement was of a very inferior quality. It was also alleged in the complaint that the staff of the Office of the Executive Engineer, Panchayat, R&B Division, No. 1 & 2, Ahmedabad, have hands in glow with the management of the State Cement company, as to how they purchased such cement of inferior quality at a very high rate. A copy of the complaint received from the above mentioned NGO is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-1. A perusal of the above mentioned complaint makes it clear that the allegation contained in the said complaint was very serious in nature. 7. It is respectfully submitted that the said complaint came to be forwarded by the Office of the Vigilance Commissioner to the Office of Secretary, Road and Building Department, Gandhinagar on 22.04.1993 along with the said complaint. 8. It is submitted that after receipt of the above mentioned complaint, from Office of the Vigilance Commissioner, R&B Department forwarded the said complaint for investigation to the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat, (R&B) Circle, Ahmedabad. 8. It is submitted that after receipt of the above mentioned complaint, from Office of the Vigilance Commissioner, R&B Department forwarded the said complaint for investigation to the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat, (R&B) Circle, Ahmedabad. It is submitted that after receipt of the report from the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat, (R&B) Circle, Ahmedabad vide letter dated 06.11.1995, Roads and Buildings department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar forwarded its report to the Office of the Vigilance Commission. A copy of the said report dated 06.11.19959 forwarded to the Office of the Vigilance Commission is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-2. 9. It is submitted that in turn the Office of the Vigilance Commissioner forwarded its opinion vide order dated 04.12.1995 whereby it was clearly directed that necessary action against the accused officer should be taken. The recommendation received from the State Vigilance Commission is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-3. 10. Vigilance Commission had given report marked as Annexure-3 in which Vigilance Commissioner had recommended to institute a departmental inquiry against whoever found responsible in the matter. In sup. Engg. Was apprised the same and asked to verify responsible officials by secretary, R&B Department and the Sup. Engg. gave reports with regard to the above letter dated. In that reports total 9 officials were held responsible by Sup. Engg. It is submitted that from the investigation, in all, a total number of 9 officers who were prima facie found to have committed breach in the above matter were issued charge sheets on different dates. A copy of the detailed chart demonstrating name of concerned officers, date of issuance of charge-sheet and the date of Order for imposing penalty upon the respective officers is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-4. 11. It is submitted that for the sake of gravity, I am annexing a copy of each and every charge sheet issued to the respective officers as to when the same is required, the deponent may be permitted to place on record the copies of all the charge sheets issued to different officers for the same misconduct before this Hon'ble Court. 12. It is submitted that in the present case initially 9 officials were found responsible as per Annexure-4 among them one Mr. N.G. Gurjar who was the Deputy Executive Engineer in the Panchayat R&B Sub-Division, Viramgam. The said charge sheet was issued to Mr. Gurjar on 20.10.1999. 12. It is submitted that in the present case initially 9 officials were found responsible as per Annexure-4 among them one Mr. N.G. Gurjar who was the Deputy Executive Engineer in the Panchayat R&B Sub-Division, Viramgam. The said charge sheet was issued to Mr. Gurjar on 20.10.1999. In reply to the said charge sheet, Mr. Gurjar had represented his defence statement dated 25.11.1999 in which he said that during that point of time when the said cement of inferior quality was used, during that period, he was not working in the Office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat R&B, Sub-Division, Viramgam, but at that point of time, the present petitioner Mr. U.A. Narsinghani was incharge of the Office of Panchayat, R&B, Sub-Division, Viramgam. It is submitted that along with his reply he Mr. Gurjar has produced all the relevant records of his office to show that when the said purchase had been made, present petitioner was posted in the said office. A copy of the reply written by Mr. N.G. Gurjar is annexed along with the documents Annexure R-5. It is submitted that after receipt of the reply from Mr. Gurjar, the Office of the Deponent has written a letter to the Office of the Superintending Engineer was asked to make clear about the person who was posted at that point of time in the Office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat, R&B, Sub-Division, Viramgam, vide letter dated 14.12.1999. A copy of the said letter is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-6. In response to the above mentioned letter, the Office of the Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 02.01.2000 has informed the Office of Deponent that the said cement of inferior quality was purchased when the present petitioner was posted in the said office and therefore, the petitioner is liable for the same. A copy of the letter dated 20.01.2000 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-7. It is submitted that after the receipt of the above mentioned clarity from the Office of the Superintending Engineer, the Office of the Deponent had issued charged sheet dated 21.06.2000 to the petitioner which is challenged in the present petition. 14. Now I would like to throw some light about second charge sheet issued to the present petitioner. It is submitted that after the receipt of the above mentioned clarity from the Office of the Superintending Engineer, the Office of the Deponent had issued charged sheet dated 21.06.2000 to the petitioner which is challenged in the present petition. 14. Now I would like to throw some light about second charge sheet issued to the present petitioner. It is submitted that on 26.11.1990, a representation from one social worker namely Bupendra H. Patel came to be received by Office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister as well as the Hon'ble Minister for Road and Building Department alleging serious irregularities and corruption in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Road and Building Division, Ahmedabad City. It is submitted that in the said representation, it is complained that a total number of 4 divisional Offices have committed financial irregularities in purchase of materials. The copy of the said representation dated 26.11.1990 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-8. It is submitted that on the basis of the above mentioned representation the Road and Building Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar, has directed the office of the Superintending Engineer, Ahmedabad City (R&B) Circle, Ahmedabad to look into the matter and to submit its report on or before 28.02.1991. A copy of the above mentioned communication is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-9. 15. It is submitted that along with the above mentioned representation sent by the social worker Bupendra H. Patel, he has also sent a complaint to the Office of the Vigilance Commissioner vide representation dated 04.12.1990. It is submitted that the Gujarat State Vigilance Commission vide its letter dated 21.01.1991 has also directed the Office of the Secretary, Road and Building Department, Gandhinagar to look into the matter and send the report within the period of 2 months. The copy of the letter written by the Office of the State Vigilance Commission is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-10. It is submitted that upon receipt of the above mentioned communication, the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Ahmedabad City (R&B) Circle, Ahmedabad, vide order dated 20.05.1991, has submitted its report before the authorities. It is submitted that upon receipt of the above mentioned report, the decision came to be taken by the Quality Control Works with on 17.08.1993 whereby the entire inquiry in irregularity came to be hand over to the Office of the Executive Engineer, Quality Control (R&B) Division, Rajkot. 16. It is submitted that upon receipt of the above mentioned report, the decision came to be taken by the Quality Control Works with on 17.08.1993 whereby the entire inquiry in irregularity came to be hand over to the Office of the Executive Engineer, Quality Control (R&B) Division, Rajkot. 16. It is submitted that in pursuance to the above referred preliminary inquiry, the Executive Engineer, Quality Control (R&B) Division Rajkot vide its report dated 20.12.1993 sent the preliminary report on the inquiry to the Chief Engineer, (Quality Control) & Add. Secretary, R&B Department Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar. 17. It is submitted that Executive Engineer, Medical Road and Building Division, Ahmedabad has also supplied the necessary details to the Chief Engineer (A.C.) & A.S., R&B Department Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar on 28.01.1994." 10. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned AGP prays that there being no merit in this writ application, the same be rejected. 11. It appears from the materials on record that on 27th December, 2000, rule was issued and an ad-interim order was passed, as a result, the departmental inquiries got stayed. The ad-interim relief has continued till this date. 12. It has been almost 16 years by now from the date of the retirement of the petitioner from the service. 13. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in this writ application. 14. I may first consider the principles of law which would govern the consideration of the issues raised herein. So far as the delay in issuance of the charge-sheets is concerned, I may usefully refer to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Banisingh & Another, 1990 (Supp.) SCC 738. Just as the case before me, in Banisingh (supra) as well, the State had appealed against the order of the Tribunal on the ground that it ought not to have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and latches. The alleged irregularity had taken place in 1975-77 and the department was aware of the same. The Supreme Court held that it was unreasonable to think that it would take more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. The contention was rejected by the Court holding as follows: "4. The alleged irregularity had taken place in 1975-77 and the department was aware of the same. The Supreme Court held that it was unreasonable to think that it would take more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. The contention was rejected by the Court holding as follows: "4. The appeal against the order dated December 16, 1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and latches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigation were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal." 15. Again in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan, 1998 (4) SCC 154 the Supreme Court considered the same issue and laid down the following principles:- "19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations." 16. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that disciplinary proceedings are necessary in public interest as well. They are essential in inculcating a sense of discipline and efficiency. The proceedings should not be protracted. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to the pronouncement in the case of P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 (7) JT 417 . They are essential in inculcating a sense of discipline and efficiency. The proceedings should not be protracted. In this regard, my attention has been drawn to the pronouncement in the case of P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, 2005 (7) JT 417 . In this case, a charge memo was issued to the appellant on the 8th of January, 2000 pertaining to the alleged irregularity in issuing a sale deed in the year 1990. There was no explanation for the extraordinary delay of ten years in initiating the proceedings. The respondent had attempted to explain that the irregularities for which the disciplinary action had been initiated had come to light only in the second half of 1994-95, when the audit report was released. This explanation was not accepted by the Supreme Court. The court noted the unbearable mental agony and distress caused to the officer concerned and held as follows:- "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. 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." 17. In the case of P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D. T.N. Housing Board, 2005 (6) SCC 636 the Supreme Court made the following observations: "This Court held that there was hardly any explanation worth consideration as to why the delay occurred. In the circumstances, this Court held that the Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated 31.7.1995 and directing the State to promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos dated 27.10.1995 and 1.6.1996. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed. Mr. Prabhakar also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed. Mr. Prabhakar also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his case. It is stated in para 14 of the affidavit that the respondent with the mala fide intention issued the present charge memo against the appellant even though the alleged incident of issuance of sale deed was of the year 1990, which was 10 year prior to the issuance of charge memo and that very reason for issuing charge memo was that the appellant could be detained from promoting to the post of Chief Engineer of the Housing Board. 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." 18. Thus, what is discernible from the case law referred to above is that whether the disciplinary proceedings deserve to be terminated would depend on the facts and the circumstances of each case. The Court should consider whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, keeping in mind the nature of the charge, its complexity and the explanation, if any, of the delay. If the delay remains unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. 19. In the case in hand, no satisfactory explanation has been given for the delay except some administrative exigencies. Besides the same, I am of the view that the first charge sheet is absolutely baseless. When the executive engineer was proceeded departmentally for the very same charge which the petitioner is facing today, the petitioner also could have been proceeded departmentally along with him, but there is no explanation why action was not taken against the petitioner at the relevant point of time. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had brought to the notice of the authorities regarding the inferior quality of the cement and based on such letter, the departmental inquiry was initiated against the executive engineer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had brought to the notice of the authorities regarding the inferior quality of the cement and based on such letter, the departmental inquiry was initiated against the executive engineer. If that be so, then I see no good reason why the petitioner should be proceeded departmentally, and that too, after almost seven years from the date of such alleged misconduct. 20. So far as the second charge sheet is concerned, there is a gross delay of almost 15 years. This delay has not been explained in any manner. 21. I am conscious of the position of law that law does not permit quashing of the charge sheet in a routine manner. The delay in concluding the domestic inquiry is not always fatal. It depends upon the facts and the circumstances of each case. However, in the case in hand, the unexplained protracted delay on the part of the respondents is one of the circumstances which weighed with me in not permitting the respondents to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. 22. So far as the second charge sheet is concerned, the same pertains to the period between 1985 and 1988. How do the respondents expect the petitioner to defend himself for something which had occurred almost 31 years back. 23. The learned AGP has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Finance vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, 2012 (11) SCC 565 . In this case, the charge memorandum dated 8th January, 1992 was issued to the respondents on the alleged demand of bribe of Rs. 37,000/- and its acceptance on 3rd August, 1991. The Supreme Court observed as under: "9. Law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance. (Vide : State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh & Another, AIR 1990 SC 1308 ; State of Punjab & Others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 ; Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Faizabad vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey & Others, (1995) 3 SCC 134 ; Union of India & Another vs. Ashok Kacker, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 180; Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Department vs. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157 ; State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SC 1833 ; Food Corporation of India & Another vs. V.P. Bhatia, (1998) 9 SCC 131 ; Additional Supdt. of Police vs. T. Natarajan, 1999 SCC (L&S) 646; M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India & Others, AIR 2006 SC 3475 ; P.D. Agrawal vs. State Bank of India & Others, AIR 2006 SC 2064 and Government of A.P. & Others vs. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14 SCC 49 ). 10. In Secretary, Forest Department & Others vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdhury, (2009) 7 SCC 305 , this Court dealt with the issue and observed that delay in concluding the domestic enquiry is not always fatal. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should not be permitted to continue. 11. Ordinarily a writ application does not lie against a charge-sheet or show cause notice for the reason that it does not give rise to any cause of action. It does not amount to an adverse order which affects the right of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction/competence to do so. A writ lies 6 Page 7 when some right of a party is infringed. In fact, charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. In fact, charge sheet does not infringe the right of a party. It is only when a final order imposing the punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, it may have a grievance and cause of action. Thus, a charge sheet or show cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. (Vide : State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943 ; Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Others, (1996) 1 SCC 327 ; Ulagappa & Others vs. Div. Commr., Mysore & Others, AIR 2000 SC 3603 ; Special Director & Another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse & Another, AIR 2004 SC 1467 and Union of India & Another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906). 12. In State of Orissa & Another vs. Sangram Keshari Misra & Another, (2010) 13 SCC 311 , this Court held that normally a charge-sheet is not quashed prior to the conclusion of the enquiry on the ground that the facts stated in the charge are erroneous for the reason that correctness or truth of the charge is the function of the disciplinary authority. Union of India & Others vs. Upendra Singh, (1994) 3 SCC 357 . 13. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that charge-sheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge-sheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings." 24. The Supreme Court did not lay down any absolute proposition that a charge-sheet cannot be ever challenged. In para-8 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has specifically noted that the law does not permit quashing of the charge-sheet in a "routine manner". Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings." 24. The Supreme Court did not lay down any absolute proposition that a charge-sheet cannot be ever challenged. In para-8 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has specifically noted that the law does not permit quashing of the charge-sheet in a "routine manner". The case considered by the Supreme Court also shows that a charge-sheet in that case had been issued within one year of the alleged action by the employee. 25. In para-9 of the judgment, the Supreme Court also noted that the delay in concluding the domestic inquiry is not always fatal and that it depends upon the facts and the circumstances of each case. 26. In para-10 of the judgment, the Supreme Court noted that a writ application does not ordinarily lie against the charge-sheet or show-cause notice and that it should not ordinarily be quashed. The Supreme Court has, therefore, reiterated the well settled principles that the proceedings initiated at a belated stage would be quashed if the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. I have noted above the pronouncement of the Supreme Court, wherein the Court has observed the manner in which the delay would result prejudice. In view thereof, this judicial precedent is of no assistant to the State Government in the present writ petition. 27. It is further contended by the learned AGP that the petitioner had failed to show as to how he has been prejudiced by the delay. Reliance is placed on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court reported in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. Appala Swamy 2007 (3) Scale 1 and Chairman, LIC of India & Others vs. A. Masilamani, JT 2012 (11) SC 533 in support of this submission. 28. I find that in the Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others (supra) referred to above, the Supreme Court has again reiterated the well settled principles that no hard and fast rule can be laid on the effect of delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings or on the aspect of its impact on the delinquent. It was observed that the employee has to make out a case of prejudice. The court also noted that the question had to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view of the nature of the charges. 29. It was observed that the employee has to make out a case of prejudice. The court also noted that the question had to be considered in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in view of the nature of the charges. 29. So far as the judgment in Chairman, LIC of India & Others vs. A. Masilamani (supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court in para 10.2 has held as follows: "10.2 The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a powers is de hors the limitation of judicial review. In the event that the court/tribunal exercises such powers, it exceeds its powers of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, can not ordinarily be quashed by court. The same principle is applicable, in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question, have to be examined, taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of charges involved therein. The essence of the matter is that the court must take into consideration all relevant facts and to balance the weigh the same, so as to determine, if it is in fact in the interest of clean and honest administration, that the judicial proceedings are allowed to be terminated, only on the ground of delay in their conclusion." The absolute proposition urged by the learned AGP has not been laid down by the Supreme Court in this case. 30. In the result, this application succeeds and is allowed. Both the charge sheets, i.e. dated 14.9.2000 and 27.11.2000 are hereby ordered to be quashed. Both the departmental inquiries are ordered to be dropped. The respondents are directed to forthwith calculate the retirement benefits due to the petitioner and make the necessary payment within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.