ORDER 01.12.2017. This writ petition has been filed by the State of Odisha in the Department of Water Resources, Bhubaneswar, assailing the order dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.675 (C) of 2012, wherein learned Tribunal relying upon the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Rajpal Singh, reported in 2010 (5) SCC 783, held that different punishments cannot be imposed on different delinquents charged in disciplinary proceedings held under Rule 17 of the OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962 (for short, the CCA Rules). Accordingly, the punishment imposed on the opposite party No.1, namely, Nirakar Biswal, vide order No.600/WR (C) dated 10.09.2012 was quashed and the petitioners were directed to extend the benefits in favour of opposite party No.1 within a period of four months from the dated of receipt of the said order. 2. Mr. M.S. Sahu, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the petitioners-State submitted that the opposite party No.1 while working as Junior Engineer, M.I. Section, Harichandanpur under M.I. Division, Anandapur, faced a departmental enquiry along with Sri Ashok Kumar Behera, the then Executive Engineer in-charge, M.I. Division, Anandpur, Kashinath Rout, the then Assistant Engineer, M.I. Sub-Division, Harichandanpur and Dayanidhi Nayak, Junior Engineer, M.I. Section, Jangira and was placed under suspension with effect from 06.11.2009. Subsequently, charges were framed against the Delinquent Officers and a joint enquiry was conducted under Section 17 of the CCA Rules, 1962. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiring Officer submitted his report on 30.10.2010 holding the opposite party no.1 along with Sri Ashok Kumar Behera, the then Assistant Engineer, to be guilty of the charges and suggested punitive action against them under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules. Since, Kashinath Rout was superannuated by then, his case was recommended to be dealt with under the provisions of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. As Dayanidhi Nayak was appointed as Junior Engineer on contractual basis and was removed by then, it was held that his case could not be dealt with under the provisions of CCA and a criminal proceeding was recommended to be initiated against him. 3. During pendency of the enquiry, the opposite party No.1 was reinstated in service vide order dated 24.06.2010 considering his representation dated 20.06.2010 pending finalisation of the proceeding. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, vide order dated 30.09.2013. 3. During pendency of the enquiry, the opposite party No.1 was reinstated in service vide order dated 24.06.2010 considering his representation dated 20.06.2010 pending finalisation of the proceeding. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, vide order dated 30.09.2013. Following due procedure of law, the opposite party No.1 was dismissed from service vide order dated 11.09.2012. Assailing the same, the opposite party No.1 had filed O.A. No.675 (C) of 2012, wherein the impugned order under Annexure-4 was passed. 4. Mr. Sahu, learned Additional Government Advocate further submitted that although a joint enquiry under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules was conducted against all the delinquents, the charges framed against each of the delinquents are distinctly separate considering the duties and responsibility entrusted to each of the delinquents vis-a-vis their respective delinquency. Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the same and relying upon the decision in the case of Rajpal Singh (supra) has passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He, relying upon a decision in the case of Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 775 submitted that Hon’ble Apex Court taking into consideration the ratio decided in Rajpal Singh (supra) held as follows : “16. Does the present case make out discrimination in inflicting punishment? We do not think so. In the first place, the respondent and the two other delinquents may have been found guilty in connection with the same incident, i.e. illegal grant of occupancy rights in respect of Government land to five persons but the charges against the respondent and the other two delinquents cannot be said to be same or substantially similar. 17. The substance of the charge against the respondent was that as a Land Reforms Officer-I, he granted occupancy rights to the Government land to five persons with ulterior motive by getting the survey conducted from co-delinquent R.K. Kapdi, Surveyor and without following the procedure prescribed under the Regulations. On the other hand, the main charge against R.K. Kapdi was that he prepared a map by not following the procedure and without verifying the documentary evidence as was required under the Regulations and assigning new plot numbers without any authority in flagrant violation of law. On the other hand, the main charge against R.K. Kapdi was that he prepared a map by not following the procedure and without verifying the documentary evidence as was required under the Regulations and assigning new plot numbers without any authority in flagrant violation of law. As regards, P.N.Vinod, he was principally charged for having prepared the statement on oath of each of the applicants in his own handwriting in the absence of the applicants and thereby abusing his official position as Patel Talati. Thus, there was variation in allegations of misconduct and all the three delinquents could not have been put on par although joint enquiry was held and there was common evidence.” Thus, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-4. 5. Pet contra, Mr. Pattnaik, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.1, without disputing the factual aspects of the case, submitted on law that since all the delinquents faced disciplinary proceeding for the same incident, they cannot be punished differently as held in Paragraphs-5 and 6 of Rajpal Singh (supra), which is reproduced below. “5 Though, on principle the ratio in aforesaid cases would ordinarily apply, but in the case in hand, the High Court appears to have considered the nature of charges levelled against the five employees who stood charged on account of the incident that happened on the same day and then the High Court came to the conclusion that since the gravity of charges was the same, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to impose different punishments for different delinquents. The reasoning given by the High Court cannot be faulted with since the State is not able to indicate as to any difference in the delinquency of these employees. 6. It is undoubtedly open for the disciplinary authority to deal with the delinquency and once charges are established to award appropriate punishment. But when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the impugned order requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.” Elaborating his submission, Mr. Pattnaik submitted that during 2006-07 and 2007-08, execution of two M.I.Ps. namely, Mankadanacha (D/W) and Balamunda MIP under Harichandanpur Block of Keonjhar district were taken up under R.S.V.Y. Scheme. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the impugned order requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.” Elaborating his submission, Mr. Pattnaik submitted that during 2006-07 and 2007-08, execution of two M.I.Ps. namely, Mankadanacha (D/W) and Balamunda MIP under Harichandanpur Block of Keonjhar district were taken up under R.S.V.Y. Scheme. An inspection was conducted during the period from 6.08.2009 and 20.08.2009 and serious irregularities were detected in execution of the MIPs. Accordingly, the Delinquent Officers were charged on five counts, namely, dereliction in duties, violation of Codal Provision, showing undue favour to the Contractor, mis-appropriation of Government money by way of recording excess and false measurement and mis-conduct. A joint disciplinary proceeding under Rule 17 following Rule 15 of the CCA Rules was initiated against all the delinquents and only opposite party no.1 was dismissed from service, which was illegal, discriminatory and violative of the principles of law. Being aggrieved, the opposite party No.1 filed O.A. No.675 of 2012.Considering the rival contentions of the parties and the materials available on record, learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order under Annexure-4, which is just and proper, and needs no interference. He further submitted that during pendency of the disciplinary proceeding the opposite party No.1 was reinstated in service and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in due course. Since the impugned order under Annexure-4 was not implemented within the stipulated period of four months, the opposite party no.1 filed contempt petition and in the meantime, the impugned order has already been implemented and the opposite party No.1 has been given all benefits pursuant to the impugned order. As such, the impugned order is no more available to be challenged. The writ petition is hopelessly barred by limitation as the impugned order was passed on 22.11.2013 and the writ petition was filed on 04.07.2016 without explaining the delay in filing the writ petition. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the delay and latches of the petitioners. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute to the case law as referred to above. Be that as it may, the impugned order under Annexure-4 was passed on 22.11.2013 and Mr. Sahu, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instruction, submitted that the same has already been implemented. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute to the case law as referred to above. Be that as it may, the impugned order under Annexure-4 was passed on 22.11.2013 and Mr. Sahu, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instruction, submitted that the same has already been implemented. As submitted by learned Counsel for the parties, the delinquent officer, namely, Kashinath Rout, was retired from service during pendency of the disciplinary enquiry. Hence, the Enquiring Officer recommend to proceed against him under the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Sri Dayanidhi Nayak was appointed as Junior Engineer on contractual basis and has been removed from service. Hence, he could not be proceeded under the provisions of CCA Rules. Sri Ashok Behera has expired in the meantime. 8. On perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioners have explained the delay at Para-10, which is reproduced below : “10. That it is humbly submitted that some delay has been caused in approaching the Hon’ble Court. Delay is not intentional. Delay has been caused due to fulfillment of official formalities.” 9. As it appears, no explanation for the delay has been given by the petitioners, which is the basic requirement to be satisfied to entertain the writ petition after a delay of more than three years. Although the period of limitation has not been provided for filing of a writ petition, lit should be filed within a reasonable time and a long lapse of about four years without any explanation of the delay cannot be treated to be a reasonable period. Moreover, the impugned order under Annexure-4 has already been implemented in the meantime. 10. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.