ORDER : The petitioner who is working as Executive Engineer in Public Health Engineering Department has filed the instant writ petition seeking a mandums to quash and set aside charge-sheet dt.31.01.2017 issued under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, whereby the Department of Personnel has initiated Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed to discharge him from the enquiry initiated against him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was in receipt of memo along with charge-sheet dt.31.01.2017 wherein it was alleged that while the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, at Rajgarh Division Distrit Alwar from 25.10.2007 to 30.06.2008 during his tenure, there was increase in the permissible Reserve Stock Limit of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lac) to Rs.2,6755733/- and as such the Reserve stock limit was extended twenty seven times. It was alleged that the petitioner by keeping increased stock than the Reserve stock limit, violated Rule 142 and 138 of Public Works Financial & Accounts Rules. The department alleged that by violating such Rule the petitioner had committed negligence in discharge of his duty and has committed serious misconduct. The details of allegations were annexed with memo of charge-sheet wherein bifurcation was given of the permissible stock limit and the excess stock than the Reserve stock limit maintained by the petitioner. The charge levelled against the petitioner in charge-sheet memo dt.31.01.2017 is reproduced hereunder:- ^^Jh yky flag eh.kk rRdkyhu vf/k’’kk"kh vfHk;Urk] tu LokLF; vfHk;kaf=dh foHkkx] [k.M jktx< ds fo:) fojfpr vkjksi dk fooj.k%& vkjksi ;g gS fd vki Jh yky flag eh.kk] vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk fnukad 25-10-07 ls 30-06-08 rd dh vof/k esa tc vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk [k.M jktx< ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks] rc vkids }kjk [k.Mh; Hk.Mkj dh fjtoZ LVkWd lhek 10-00 yk[k ds fo:) jkf'k :i;s 26755733-00 LVkWd j[kdj vkjf{kr LdU/k lhek dk 27 xq.kk LVkWd j[kk x;kA bl izdkj vki Jh yky flag eh.kk }kjk [k.Mh; Hk.Mkj dh vkjf{kr LVkWd lhek ls vf/kd LVkWd j[kdj yksd fuekZ.k foRrh; ,oa ys[kk fu;e 142] 138 dh vogsyuk dh xbZA bl izdkj vki Jh yky flag eh.kk fu;eksa dk mYy?kau djus ,ao dRrZO; ds izfr ykijokgh cjrdj xEHkhj nqjkpj.k djus ds fy, mRrjnk;h gSA tSlkfd layXu vkjksi ls lacaf/kr vfHkdFku esa vafdr gSA** 3. The petitioner has pleaded in his writ petition that after receipt of charge-sheet, he requested the respondents to permit him inspection of record and further to make him available copies of certain documents which he wanted to use for the purpose of filing reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that though he was permitted on 09.03.2017 to inspect certain documents, however he needed five more documents as per his application dt.09.03.2017. The petitioner has alleged that vide letter dt.12.04.2017 (Annex.-3) he was informed that the documents which he demanded, were not relevant and as such the petitioner was asked to file his reply within 15 days. The petitioner has pleaded that he made request again by letter dt.24.04.2017 to have inspection of certain documents and the same was rejected vide order dt.17.05.2017 and the petitioner was asked to file his reply by 22.05.2017. 4. The petitioner submitted his reply to charge-sheet on 26.05.2017. The petitioner pleaded in his reply that the department in irregular manner declined him inspection of (4 of 17) [CW-8754/2018] certain documents and the copies of documents, relevant for preparing reply, were also not supplied to him. The petitioner submitted in his reply that under the Right to Information Act (RTI), he was able to get the documents of his own and as such he filed his reply denying the charges levelled against him. 5. The petitioner in his defence referred to some statement of the Hon’ble Chief Minister which was given in the year 2008-09 that cement pipes should not be used in any drinking water schemes under any circumstances and proposals/works incorporating AC pipes should be modified immediately. The petitioner pleaded that AC pipes which were purchased, were not to be used as per the stock which got increased because of purchase of these pipes. The petitioner further pleaded that the violation of Rule 142 & 138 of Public Works Financial & Accounts Rules had not taken place and in fact the petitioner had got instructions from the higher authorities from time to time to increase the Reserve stock limit. 6. The petitioner further pleaded that the violation of Rule 142 & 138 of Public Works Financial & Accounts Rules had not taken place and in fact the petitioner had got instructions from the higher authorities from time to time to increase the Reserve stock limit. 6. The petitioner has alleged that without considering his reply, the respondents have appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry and the department is proceeding further to conduct the regular enquiry and as such the petitioner is deprived to defend himself properly due to several irregularities committed right from the stage of issuing charge-sheet to him. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the charge-sheet and department enquiry which has been initiated on the following grounds:- “1. The alleged incident of increase in Reserve stock limit is said to have taken place from 25.10.2007 to 30.06.2008 and the petitioner has been served a charge-sheet dt.31.01.2017. Counsel for the petitioner submits that issuance of charge-sheet almost after 10 years, vitiates the charge-sheet and the petitioner cannot be proceeded in department enquiry in such matter. 2. The respondents have not considered the reply of the petitioner and without considering the reply, the Enquiry Officer has been appointed. 3. The documents demanded by the petitioner for inspection and for taking extracts were not provided by the department, which resulted into violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner has not been able to defend himself properly and the department has proceeded illegally against him. 4. The alleged misconduct which is levelled against the petitioner is in fact no misconduct as there was no ill motive or dishonesty on the part of the petitioner and merely negligence of duty does not amount to committing the misconduct. 5. The respondents have acted in discriminatory manner as similar charges were levelled against the other co-delinquent Devendra Kothari, and he has been exonerated by the department vide order dt.01.06.2016.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh & Anr. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308 and has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dr. B.K. Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in RLR 1992(1) 210. In the case of Sukhraj Singh Vs. Bani Singh & Anr. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308 and has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dr. B.K. Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in RLR 1992(1) 210. In the case of Sukhraj Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan reported in RLW 1988 (2) 432, S.K. Dutt Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in RLR 1990(1) 1 and Dr. R.K. Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in RLR 1989(1) 659. 9. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 10. The first submission of counsel for the petitioner that the charge-sheet, which has been issued to him for the alleged incident of 2007-08 after a lapse of 10 years and as such the same is not sustainable in the eye of law, this Court finds that the respondents have issued charge-sheet to the petitioner giving out complete details wherein the petitioner is alleged to have violated the Rules of not maintaining the Reserve stock limit and the department while giving the details in the memo of allegation attached with the charge-sheet, has specifically dealt with the violation of the Rules and further the directions issued from time to time by the higher authorities of maintaining the record. This Court finds that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner in the year 2017 cannot be vitiated on the ground of delay. 11. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh & Anr (supra). In the said judgment the Apex Court has recorded a finding in para four that it is not the case of the respondents that they were not aware of the irregularities and the irregularities have come to their knowledge in the month of April, 1977, the charge-sheet was issued to the delinquent in the year 1987. 12. The factors which prevailed upon the Apex Court were with respect to knowledge of the employer about the irregularities committed by the petitioner and yet they did not initiate the department enquiry and in such backgrounds, the Apex Court has held that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the chargesheet. 12. The factors which prevailed upon the Apex Court were with respect to knowledge of the employer about the irregularities committed by the petitioner and yet they did not initiate the department enquiry and in such backgrounds, the Apex Court has held that there was no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the chargesheet. The Apex Court further recorded a finding that the department had come to know about the irregularities in the month of April, 1977 and in spite of such knowledge, the charge-sheet was issued in the year 1987. This Court finds that the said judgment of the Apex Court lays down the principle that there has to be a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge-sheet and if there is no explanation it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at a belated stage. 13. This Court finds that in the present case, the respondents have issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner after considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner of committing serious irregularities and only on account of charge-sheet being issued in the year 2017, the same cannot be vitiated. This Court also finds that in the matter of maintaining record, the irregularities committed by various officers, the employer has to collect the relevant datas’ and after gathering the relevant information, if the delinquent is issued the charge-sheet, the employee cannot take a plea that due to delay caused in the issuance of charge-sheet, the entire proceedings is vitiated. 14. The Apex Court has specifically explained further the scope of challenge to the charge-sheet on the ground of delay. The Apex Court has made it clear on the issue of delay, the charge-sheet cannot be vitiated if there are reasons available with the department to initiate such proceedings and there cannot be any definite principle of law, where different limits can be prescribed to issue the charge-sheet. It all depends on the facts of each case that in what manner the employer has to initiate and take disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent. The employee concerned gets full opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry by providing the relevant records and if on the ground of non-availability of relevant evidence and material, if any employee suffers, the same is required to be examined by the Court in each case. 15. The employee concerned gets full opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry by providing the relevant records and if on the ground of non-availability of relevant evidence and material, if any employee suffers, the same is required to be examined by the Court in each case. 15. This Court finds that it is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all the cases and in all situations where there is delay in initiating or concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on the ground of delay the disciplinary proceedings are to be termed bad or required to be terminated, requires to be examined on the facts and circumstances in a particular case. The Court has to take into consideration all the 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, when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charges, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. 16. The Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakishan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 has laid down the principle to maintain the balance between purity of administration and the adverse effect which prolonged proceedings have on an employee. The relevant para 19 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) is reproduced hereunder:- “19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 their 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.” 17. The plea of the counsel for the petitioner that only because of nine years, he has been deprived to defend his case, cannot be accepted. In the present case, the petitioner has been permitted to inspect the relevant record and take copies of certain documents which have been considered relevant by the department and the application of the petitioner seeking other documents has been rejected as their were not found to be relevant. The perusal of reply further shows that the petitioner has not said a single word about any delay being caused in issuance of charge-sheet and such delay caused any prejudice to him in defending. 18. This Court finds that only on the ground of delay in the present case, the charge-sheet cannot be set aside. 19. The perusal of reply further shows that the petitioner has not said a single word about any delay being caused in issuance of charge-sheet and such delay caused any prejudice to him in defending. 18. This Court finds that only on the ground of delay in the present case, the charge-sheet cannot be set aside. 19. The objection of the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent-department did not permit him to have inspection of relevant documents and further did not allow him to have copies of the relevant documents, this Court finds that under Rule 16(3) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, the Government servant for the purpose of preparing his defence, is permitted to inspect and take extracts from official records and such permission can be refused for the reasons to be recorded in writing, if in the opinion of the disciplinary authority, such records are not relevant. This Court finds that the petitioner himself has admitted that he was permitted to inspect the relevant documents on 09.03.2017 and still demanded five more documents. The authorities by order dt.12.04.2017 and 17.05.2017 have declined the request of the petitioner as the documents demanded by the petitioner, were not relevant for the purpose of his defence. 20. This Court further finds that the petitioner himself has pleaded in his reply before the respondents that on his own he was able to get the copies of documents, demanded by him, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI). The petitioner cannot have any right to take a plea that he has not been supplied copies of the documents and due to non supply of copies of documents, the Disciplinary Proceedings are vitiated. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is not of much substance to help the case of the petitioner and the same is rejected. 21. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer has been appointed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner and as such the disciplinary authority ought to have taken into account the defence taken by the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has filed reply and he has defended his actions, which he had taken during his posting as Executive Engineer at Rajgarh. The disciplinary authority after considering the reply, has appointed the Enquiry Officer and it is the sole discretion of the disciplinary authority to appoint the Enquiry Officer to look into the charges and it cannot be pleaded by the delinquent that there has to be a detailed order or discussion before making an order of appointment of Enquiry Authority/Officer. The disciplinary authority, if found that the charges which were levelled against the delinquent/petitioner were required to be examined in detail, the discretion has been exercised in proper manner. 22. The next plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there has been discrimination in proceedings against the petitioner by issuing the charge-sheet, this Court finds that the order dt.01.06.2016 has been passed by the respondents in respect of one Shri Devendra Kothari, who was working as Ex.En in PHED Department in Sub-Division, Jaipur-I and he was issued charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules, 1958. The delinquent had submitted his reply and the disciplinary authority found that there was no violation of Rules 142 & 138 of Public Works Financial & Accounts Rules and on merits, his case was considered and accordingly the order was passed exonerating such person. The petitioner wanted to draw analogy and submitted that he may be permitted to show his case identical to the person, who has been exonerated by the Department. The misconduct which is alleged against the petitioner is required to be examined independently and in case, the petitioner is able to prove in the departmental enquiry that he had acted as per law and instructions issued from time to time, the department is required to consider all the pleas and then has to pass the order of exoneration but the plea of discrimination cannot be raised at this stage, when the petitioner has only challenged the charge-sheet. This Court finds that the petitioner has filed reply to the charge-sheet and he has submitted all his defence in support of his case. 23. The other submission of the learned counsel the petitioner that there was no misconduct which is committed by petitioner, suffice it to say that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is of not maintaining the Reserve stock limit and further he has violated the Rule 142 & 138 of the Public Works Financial Accounts Rules. 23. The other submission of the learned counsel the petitioner that there was no misconduct which is committed by petitioner, suffice it to say that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is of not maintaining the Reserve stock limit and further he has violated the Rule 142 & 138 of the Public Works Financial Accounts Rules. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is of serious nature and it cannot be said at this juncture that the petitioner has not committed any act which can be termed as ‘misconduct’. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not acted in dishonest manner, this Court at this stage will not be able to comment upon the nature of allegations which have been levelled against the petitioner. It for the authorities to consider, in what manner the Rules were violated by the petitioner and how the increased Reserve stock limit was maintained by the petitioner flouting the instructions issued by the authorities. 24. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Dr. B.K. Choudhary (supra), this Court was considering the case of a person who was not negligent in performance of his duties as Medical Jurist and there was no mala-fide against the petitioner and this Court in view of such facts, came to the conclusion that there was no justification to issue charge-sheet to the person who was discharging his duties as Doctor and if he committed any act during discharge of his duty as Doctor without allegation of any malafide, the department could not have been proceeded. The case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help in the present facts of the case. 25. The judgment cited in the case of Sukhraj Singh (supra) the court found that when the charge-sheet was issued without jurisdiction or it suffered from malafides and non-application of mind, the Court can entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. This Court finds that in the instant case, charges which have been levelled against the petitioner are not result of any malafide exercise or based on baseless ground or there is non-application of mind. The respondents have given the complete details of violations committed by the petitioner in maintaining the Reserve stock limit and said judgment, is of no assistance to the petitioner. 27. The respondents have given the complete details of violations committed by the petitioner in maintaining the Reserve stock limit and said judgment, is of no assistance to the petitioner. 27. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of S.K. Dutt Sharma (supra), this Court considered the effect of non-inspection of relevant documents for the purpose of preparing defence by a delinquent officer. This Court found that the inspection of relevant documents is required for preparing the defence and as such the Division Bench of this Court further considered the fact of leading evidence by way of affidavit and if the cross-examination was not permitted, the same was found to be in violation of principles of natural justice. 28. This Court has found in the present case, the authorities have already permitted inspection of certain documents to the petitioner and the petitioner has been afforded proper opportunity to prepare his defence as such this Court finds that the said judgment, is of no assistance to the petitioner. 29. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Dr. R.K. Sharma (supra), this Court had considered the definition of ‘misconduct’ and the Court came to the conclusion that it implies failure to act honestly and reasonably and negligence in duty will not be coming within the definition of the ‘misconduct’. This Court finds that the misconduct which is alleged against the petitioner is in respect of the irregularities and illegality committed by him while he was posted as Executive Engineer and the details which have been furnished in the memo of allegation, reflect that there has been a violation of increase Reserve stock limit committed by the petitioner from time to time. 30. Counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade this Court by asserting that the petitioner has not indulged in any kind of misconduct and he had not purchased any stock on his own and there is discrepancies in the allegations levelled against the petitioner and records which have been filed by the petitioner, suffice it to say it is the authority who has to consider all these aspects of allegations. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained to decide such issue as to whether a particular stock was maintained by the petitioner and whether particular stock was purchased by him or by some other officer. 31. The present writ petition is a frivolous petition and same lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.