JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 27.5.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow (for short "the Tribunal") by means of which Original Application filed by the opposite party has been allowed. 3. The opposite party, who was working with the Railway Administration was charge sheeted vide order dated 11.5.2009. In all, three charges were framed against him. The opposite party filed reply to the charge sheet. In addition to it, at a later point of time, he requested for supply of certain documents by means of letter dated 25.6.2009. The said documents were made available to the opposite party and he inspected the same. A letter in this regard was also written by the disciplinary authority on 29.6.2009 informing the opposite party that the necessary documents had been inspected by him and in case any more documents are required by him, then a request may be made to the enquiry officer. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no such request was made before the enquiry officer except letter dated 25.6.2009 and the same was complied with by the petitioners by allowing the opposite party to make inspection of the documents which were demanded by him by means of letter dated 25.6.2009. Learned counsel submits that therefore, the Tribunal has recorded a perverse finding in this regard by stating therein that the original documents were not made available to the opposite party. Apart from it, learned counsel has also submitted that the charge sheet was prepared in the year 2004 and because of the fact that vigilance enquiry was going on and result of the vigilance enquiry was awaited and after finalization of the vigilance enquiry and collection of evidence, the charge sheet was issued to the opposite party in the year 2009. There has been no unexplained delay in issuing the charge sheet. Learned counsel submits that the said delay is not so fatal so as to quash the charge sheet. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, has reiterated the same grounds, which have been relied upon by the Tribunal and has submitted that relevant documents were not supplied to the opposite party and also that the charge sheet was issued at a belated point of time. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, has reiterated the same grounds, which have been relied upon by the Tribunal and has submitted that relevant documents were not supplied to the opposite party and also that the charge sheet was issued at a belated point of time. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The Tribunal while considering the validity of the charge sheet and the charges levelled therein recorded a specific finding in paragraph-9 of the impugned judgment that request of the opposite party for supply of documents by means of letter dated 25.6.2009 remained unattended by the enquiry officer and therefore, the relevant documents were not supplied. On the aforesaid assumption, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that there was violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal while recording finding did not adhere to the documents on record. Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court towards the letter dated 24.2.2010, Annexure No.20 to the writ petition, wherein it has been specifically stated by the enquiry officer that a letter from disciplinary authority dated 9.2.2010 was received by the enquiry officer and after fruitful efforts of the disciplinary authority, the original relied upon documents the DTC book of Jangahi station dated 5.5.2004, relied upon document no.9 of Annexure No.3 of charge sheet, was received by the office of the enquiry officer, which was taken on record and the record was inspected by the charged officer/ defence helper on the same day i.e. 24.2.2010. The aforesaid letter of the enquiry officer itself goes to indicate that the documents were inspected by the opposite party and hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph-9 of the impugned judgment is perverse and against the evidence on record. 8. So far delay in issuance of charge sheet is concerned, we find from the record that reasonable explanation has been given in regard to non-issuance of charge sheet till 2009 as vigilance enquiry was going on and after collection of the evidence and verification of facts, the charge sheet was ultimately issued in 2009 in order to avoid any discrepancy on the issue in question. Therefore, delay of five years was not such fatal or unexplained that charge sheet could have been quashed. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal erred in allowing the original application. Therefore, delay of five years was not such fatal or unexplained that charge sheet could have been quashed. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal erred in allowing the original application. 9. Accordingly, a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the judgment and order dated 27.5.2015 passed by the Tribunal, but in the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the charges levelled against the opposite party, we find it appropriate that reduction of 25% pension of the opposite party will meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.