JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioners in this writ petition seek quashing of “Memorandum of charge sheet” served on them by the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary Authority) O/O General Manager Telecom, District, Jammu, herein respondent No. 3 vide communication Nos. 10314/GMTD/Vig/13 dated 20.06.2013 and 10314/GMTD/Vig/14 dated 20.06.2013. In addition, they seek prohibition against respondents from acting upon the impugned memoranda of charge and mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioners for subsequent promotional benefits strictly in accordance with law based upon eligibility coupled with merit. 2. Heard learned counsel on both the sides and perused the record. 3. Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as under: (a) Pursuant to an Advertisement Notice issued by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited inviting applications for the post of Sr. Telecom Operating Assistant, petitioners were selected for the said post in District, Rajouri. They were temporarily appointed as Sr. Telecom Operating Assistant by virtue of individual communication dated 23.09.2002 subject to the stipulations contained therein. While they were performing their duties, the Telecom District Engineer, Rajouri, herein respondent No. 4, issued individual order, both dated 05.09.2003, whereby the services of the petitioners were terminated. The petitioners challenged their termination orders in SWP No. 1825/2003 before this Court. The stand taken by the respondents in that writ petition was that the Employment Registration Cards under Registration No. 98/2002 and (b)846/99 in the name of the petitioners 2 and 1 respectively had not been issued by the Deputy Director, Employment, Rajouri. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners had produced fictitious and fabricated Employment Registration Cards. A learned Single Bench of this Court disposed of that writ petition vide judgment dated 25.11.2003 holding that the orders of termination, having been passed without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, were not sustainable. Learned Bench also took the view that “Employment Registration Card” cannot and should not be an eligibility criteria for securing employment. Therefore, whether the petitioners were/are possessed valid Employment Registration Cards, is irrelevant. Though using a fake document for securing employment is definitely a serious matter and needs to be enquired into”. Learned Bench, therefore, allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement in service of the petitioners, however, with liberty to the respondents to hold inquiry whether the petitioners have produced fake/fabricated employment registration cards for securing employment. Though using a fake document for securing employment is definitely a serious matter and needs to be enquired into”. Learned Bench, therefore, allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement in service of the petitioners, however, with liberty to the respondents to hold inquiry whether the petitioners have produced fake/fabricated employment registration cards for securing employment. (b) Pursuant to and in compliance with the judgment dated 25.11.2003, respondent No. 4 vide his order dated 15.12.2003 reinstated the petitioners in service on the terms and conditions of their appointment letters each dated 23.09.2002(supra). (c) More than a year after the judgment dated 25.11.2003 respondent No. 4 issued almost identical individual communication, both dated 04.03.2005, to the petitioners informing them that the genuinity of the Employment Registration Cards provided by them has been doubted and asking them to explain within 15 days their position in this regard. The substance of the communication issued to petitioner No. 1 is reproduced for ready reference: “Subject: Verification of employment registration cards. There has been a protracted correspondence regarding a verification of employment registration cards. The bonafides and the genuineness of the cards is under verification from concerned agencies and in this context Deputy Director Employment Rajouri has taken up the case with the BSNL authorities wherein the question of genuinity of the employment registration cards has been doubted. You are hereby given an opportunity for 15 days to explain your position in this regard for onward submission to circle office. Sd/ Telecom District Engineer Rajouri” (d) Petitioners submitted their individual reply, both dated 18.03.2005, to these communications. After a gap of more than 8 years thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued the impugned memorandum dated 20.06.2013 to each of the petitioners accompanied with identical memo of charge and statement of imputations informing them that inquiry was proposed to be held against them under Rule 36 of BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006 and asking them to submit within 15 days of the receipt of the Memoranda, a written statement of their defence and to state also, whether they desire to be heard in person. The memo of charge issued to petitioner No. 1 reads: “That Sh. The memo of charge issued to petitioner No. 1 reads: “That Sh. Pankaj Suden presently posted as TTA under SDOP Bari Brahmana in SSA Jammu while seeking initial appointment in BSNL in SSA Rajouri in the year 2001 against the advertisement No. 831-24(A)/2001-SRT/11 dated 13.12.2001 published by the office of CGMT J&K Circle Jammu for the post of Sr. TOA(G) fraudulently and by cheating produced fake Employment Exchange registration of Employment Exchange Rajouri with his application and got appointed as Sr. TOA(G)” 4. The memoranda and the memos of charge are impugned in this writ petition on various grounds. 5. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. D. C. Raina, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, however, restricted the petitioners’ assail to the impugned memos of charge to the extent of inordinate delay in initiating the departmental proceedings after decision in the earlier writ petition in the year, 2003 and issuance of show cause notice in the year, 2005. It is contended in this behalf in the writ petition that respondents did not choose to proceed further and slept over the matter till 2013, notwithstanding, that in the intervening period the petitioners were confirmed as Senior Telecom Operating Assistant(G) and thereafter, promoted in the next higher grade. 6. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Raina, submitted that charge is liable to be quashed in a case where there is inordinate delay in commencing the departmental proceedings and serving the memo of charge on the Delinquent Officer for which the Delinquent Officer is not in any manner responsible. Mr. Raina submitted also that with the confirmation and promotion of the petitioners in the meantime, the charge against them has been rendered redundant. Mr. Raina, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of A.P vs. Radha Krishnan, AIR 1998 SC 1833 and DB judgment of Calcutta High court in Prabhat Kumar Paul vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 491. In addition, learned Senior Advocate refers to a judgment of this Court (this Bench) in KafaitUllah vs. State of J&K and others 2016(3) JKJ 359. 7. Per contra, Mr. K. K. Pangotra appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that delay in itself is not a sufficient ground for quashing the memo of charge or the inquiry proceedings. Reliance is placed on Supreme Court judgment in Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society and others AIR 2013 SC 2098 . In addition, Mr. 7. Per contra, Mr. K. K. Pangotra appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that delay in itself is not a sufficient ground for quashing the memo of charge or the inquiry proceedings. Reliance is placed on Supreme Court judgment in Anant R. Kulkarni vs. Y.P. Education Society and others AIR 2013 SC 2098 . In addition, Mr. Pangotra argued that the delay is sufficiently explained as no information was provided by the District Employment Office, Rajouri up to the year 2012. 8. To reiterate precisely, initially respondents showed promptness in terminating the petitioners shortly after their appointment, however, in utter disregard to the rules and principles of natural justice. Similar promptness was shown in reinstating the petitioners pursuant to and in compliance with the judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 25.11.2003 as both of them were reinstated vide order dated 15.12.2013 issued by respondent No. 4. It is not denied that after their reinstatement, notices in regard to the Employment Registration Cards produced by the petitioners were issued to them by respondent No. 4 vide communications dated 04.03.2005 and it is not denied also that petitioners had responded to those notices vide their replies dated 18.03.2005. Thereafter, however, there was a lull for more than eight years. The impugned memoranda and memos of charge were served on the petitioners on 20.06.2013, that is, about ten years after the judgment dated 25.11.2003 and over 8 years after petitioners’ reply to the initial notices. It is not denied by the respondents in their reply that in the intervening period the Vigilance Officer, BSNL, J&K Circle vide his communication dated 06.10.2006 (annexure-G to the writ petition) had issued vigilance clearance in regard to the petitioners among others certifying that no vigilance case was pending against them. Vide order dated 30.03.2007 (annexure-H) both the petitioners among others were confirmed in the basic cadre as Sr. TOA(G). The respondent No. 4 vide his communication dated 07.02.2011 (annexure-J), while relieving petitioner No. 2 from Rajouri, had inter alia certified that there was no Vigilance/Disciplinary case pending against him. Vide order dated 28.10.2010 (annexure-K), petitioner No. 1 was upgraded from Lower IDA pay scale to next higher IDA scale. Similar up gradation was given to petitioner No. 2 vide an order dated 07.04.2011. 9. Vide order dated 28.10.2010 (annexure-K), petitioner No. 1 was upgraded from Lower IDA pay scale to next higher IDA scale. Similar up gradation was given to petitioner No. 2 vide an order dated 07.04.2011. 9. There is, thus, delay of ten years in serving the memorandum and memo of charge on each of the petitioners from the date of judgment in SWP No. 1825/2003 and eight years from the petitioners’ reply to the show cause notice. There is no satisfactory explanation for this delay on behalf of the respondents. What in this regard is stated in the reply filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 is that Assistant General Manager (Admn) Circle, Jammu had vide his letter dated 08.04.2004 forwarded to the Telecom District Engineer, Rajouri, copy of the judgment dated 19.02.2003 for information and necessary action and he was directed to verify the authenticity of the documents, that is, the Employment Registration Cards produced by the petitioners and take further necessary action as per the rules and submit report within 45 days. After that there was another letter from the office of the Chief General Manager, BSNL to the Telecom District Engineer, Rajouri dated 04.04.2005. Some seven years after that the Deputy Director, Employment Rajouri vide his letter dated 30.04.2012 had informed the Telecom District Engineer Rajouri that he was not in a position to provide any certificate regarding authenticity of the Employment Registration Cards issued to the petitioners for the reason that record of the office was not computerized prior to 2005 and that due to heavy floods in the year 2006, record of the office was washed away from the record room. No effort, however, has been made by the respondents to explain the complete silence on their part from the years, 2005 to 2012. During this period number of service benefits, as stated above, were given to the petitioners. It can rather be said that different officers at different stages, including the Vigilance Officer of the respondent-department, either were not aware of the matter or had deliberately avoided to take any action in the matter. The delay in serving the memoranda and the memo of charge on the petitioners, therefore, is inordinate and unexplained. 10. It can rather be said that different officers at different stages, including the Vigilance Officer of the respondent-department, either were not aware of the matter or had deliberately avoided to take any action in the matter. The delay in serving the memoranda and the memo of charge on the petitioners, therefore, is inordinate and unexplained. 10. The effect of unexplained inordinate delay in serving memo of charge and commencing and completing the disciplinary proceedings against a Government Servant has been considered by the Courts from time to time and recently by this Court (this Bench) in KafaitUllah vs. State of J&K and others, 2016 (3)JKJ 359. 11. In the State of Madhya Pardesh v. Bani Singh and anr. AIR 1990 SC 1308 (supra), therein respondent, an IPS Officer, was served with charge sheet on 22.04.1987 and departmental inquiry proceedings were initiated against him in respect of certain incidents that happened in 1975 76. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in an appeal filed by the respondent quashed the charge memo and the departmental inquiry on the ground of inordinate delay of over twelve years in the initiation of departmental proceedings with respect to the incident having taken place in 1975-76. In appeal against order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Supreme Court in para 4 of the judgment held: “4.The appeal against the order dated 16.12.1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches 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 1975-1977. 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 investigations 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. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations 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.” 12. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishnan, (1998) 4 SCC 15 (supra), Supreme Court has held in para 19 of the reporting: “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. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weigh 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. 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 consideration.” (underlining by me) 13. In M. V. Bijlani v. Union of India and ors. (2006) 5 SCC 88 (supra),Supreme Court noticed that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years and they continued for a period of seven years and observed that “initiation of disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after such a long time evidently prejudice the delinquent officer” (para 16). In so observing, Supreme Court in this case referred with approval to Bani Singh’s case (supra). 14. The same question has been considered by the Supreme Court in Anant R. Kulkarni’s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. The Supreme Court in that case has held that the Court should not generally set aside the departmental inquiry and quash the charge on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceeding, as such power dehors the limitation of judicial review. The Hon’ble Court, nonetheless, has held that “facts and circumstances of the case in question, must be carefully examined, taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of charges involved therein”. The Court must has to consider the seriousness and magnitude of the charges and while doing so court must weigh all the facts, both for and against the Delinquent Officer and come to the conclusion, which is just and appropriate considering the circumstances involved in the matter. The court must take into consideration all the relevant facts, and balance and weigh the same, so as to determine, if it is in the interest of the clean and honest administration, that the proceedings should be allowed to be terminated only on the ground of delay in their conclusion. 15. In the case on hand, the charge against the petitioners is that at the time of securing their selection and appointment as Sr. 15. In the case on hand, the charge against the petitioners is that at the time of securing their selection and appointment as Sr. Telecom Operating Assistant they had used fictitious “Employment Registration Cards” said to have been issued by the District Employment Office, Rajouri. Both of them were terminated on this score vide order dated 05.09.2003 issued by respondent No. 4. This Court, while quashing the termination orders in SWP No. 1825/2003, had taken the view that the Employment Registration Cards could not have been an eligibility criteria though at the same time had kept it open for the respondents to hold inquiry, whether the petitioners produced fake and fabricated Employment Registration Cards. It needs to be noticed that the office of the Deputy Director Employment, Rajouri, vide his communication dated 30.04.2012 (supra) has expressed inability to produce the record in regard to registration of the petitioners for the reason that record has been washed away in floods in the year, 2006. Had the inquiry been commenced immediately after the judgment in SWP No. 1825/2003 and concluded in the years, 2004 or 2005, the petitioners would have had fair opportunity to prove that the Employment Registration Cards were issued to them by the office of the Deputy Director Employment, Rajouri. Conversely, it would have been possible to arrive at fair conclusion as to whether the Cards produced by the petitioners were genuine or fake. That possibility, however, has now vanished in view of the communication dated 30.04.2012 (supra). Inquiry at this belated stage either would not be fruitful or is likely to cause prejudice to the petitioners. The inordinate delay, therefore, has had its serious impact and the purpose and outcome of the inquiry and the inquiry cannot be allowed to continue as possibility of causing serious prejudice to the petitioners is writ large. 16. Viewed thus, this petition is allowed and the memoranda and the memos of charges served on the petitioner are quashed.