JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner detailing the facts and events mapped out in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 103 of Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir seeks the following reliefs;- (i) Writ of Certiorari, quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondents which resulted into penalty of “censure” dated 31-10-2001 disentitling the petitioner for back dated promotion to the post of DGM (ATC) & order of censure issued on 31-10-2001 conveyed to the petitioner vide communication No. C-18011/01/2000-EA dated 21-01-2009; With (ii) Writ of mandamus, by issuing direction or order commanding the respondents to grant the benefit of next higher scale of DGM(ATC) w.e.f. 10-10-1999 alongwith consequential benefits including arrears of emoluments and post-retrial benefits, with such other additional or alternative relief as the court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The precise case as projected by the petitioner in the averments of the writ petition is, that the petitioner is a citizen of India and entitled to the protection of his fundamental, statutory and legal rights; that the petitioner though started his career in the Civil Aviation Department, which later on merged/converted into Airports Authority of India, on account of his seniority position in the Department of Civil Aviation Department he alongwith other employees of Civil Airport Department was transferred to the Airports Authority of India as Aerodrome Officer, where the petitioner was promoted to grade of Aerodrome Officer vide DGCA letter No. 32013/12/83 dated 29-11-1983 where he continued on the post for more than six (6) years without break and got all the benefits of the post, the effect of seniority in the grade of Aerodrome Officer was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 1-7-1986 vide letter No. A410111/289-PP dated 15-9-1989, his services were regularized on the said post w.e.f. 2-10-1989 by the National Airports Authority of India vide No. A-32013/ 1/90-EA-1 dated 26-2-1990. 3. That later on however as on 1-1-1991 a Draft Seniority list of Aerodrome Officers was issued by the Department vide letter No. 2/31/G9-GAD dated 21-3-1991, wherein, petitioner’s position was shown at S. No. 122 while placing emblock Direct Recruits- Aerodrome Officers appointed in March 1986 and Feb 1987 over and above the departmental candidates- Aerodrome Officers. 4. 3. That later on however as on 1-1-1991 a Draft Seniority list of Aerodrome Officers was issued by the Department vide letter No. 2/31/G9-GAD dated 21-3-1991, wherein, petitioner’s position was shown at S. No. 122 while placing emblock Direct Recruits- Aerodrome Officers appointed in March 1986 and Feb 1987 over and above the departmental candidates- Aerodrome Officers. 4. That the aforesaid seniority was challenged in the Hon’ble High Court in SWP No. 532/1992 and the said writ petition came to be disposed of by a consent order dated 26-8-1992 directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the rules. The department vide order dated 31-8-1992 disposed of the representation by rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner remained at S. No.122 in the seniority list. The Draft Seniority list of the Aerodrome Officers became final. 5. That aggrieved by the order of the dismissal of the representation of the petitioner on 31-8-1992, petitioner filed a writ petition being SWP No. 835/1992 before this Hon’ble Court, the writ petition was finally disposed of by the Hon’ble Single Judge on 21-4-1995, by quashing the final seniority list, and placing the petitioner over and above the private respondents No.4 to 43 in the writ petition w.e.f. 30-11-1983 alongwith all consequential benefits. 6. That against this order, the Chairman, National Airports Authority of India and Union of India filed Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 175/1995. This LPA was dismissed in limini on 7-9-1995 up-holding the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The private respondents in the writ petition did not challenge the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge in LPA No.175/1995, however, the private respondents in the writ petition challenged the judgment of the LPA Bench in LPA No. 1751995 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.579/1995. The judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench was confirmed and the claim of seniority of the petitioner was upheld. The judgment of the Supreme Court came on 17-12-2002 i.e. after the superannuation of the petitioner on 31-10-2001. In pursuance of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner made a representation to the Department to grant him the necessary benefits of seniority by placing him over and above the Mr. V.K. Dutta, the senior most among the direct recruits, after giving him the promotion w.e.f 23-09-1993. 7. In pursuance of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner made a representation to the Department to grant him the necessary benefits of seniority by placing him over and above the Mr. V.K. Dutta, the senior most among the direct recruits, after giving him the promotion w.e.f 23-09-1993. 7. That the petitioner was no-doubt promoted as Senior Aerodrome Officer w.e.f. 12-06-1995 but he was not given the promotion on the basis of his seniority w.e.f. 23-09-1993 when his juniors were promoted. Later on the petitioner was given the benefit of first promotion w.e.f. 23-9-1993 against the post of Senior Aerodrome Officer. In the meantime V.K. Dutta and others, the immediate juniors to the petitioner were also promoted further and granted the higher grade of DGM. W.e.f. 1-10-1999 in the pay scale of Rs 17500-400-23000 by AAI Hqrs order No. 32013/3/99 dated 3-11-1999, consequently the petitioner also asked for the same benefit by way of representation dated 28-12-2002. 8. That meanwhile the National Airports Authority and the International Airports Authority got merged as on 01-04-1994 and Airports of India was formed and this public Sector Undertaking (AAI) re-designated its employees and accordingly the petitioner was re-designated from Sr. Aerodrome Officer (ATC) to Senior Manager (ATC). 9. That during the service career of the petitioner with the respondents at Jammu Airport and just before his retirement, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under two major penalties. This was a mala-fides exercise on the part of the respondents. The petitioner in his capacity as the Senior Manager (ATC) was charge-sheeted under section 28 of the National Airports Authority i.e. NAA (ECDA) Regulation 1988 vide Memo No. C140/9/1/99-Dise (i) dated 5-8-1999 and Memo No. C-14011/25/99-Dise dated 18-2-2000. In so far as disciplinary case dated 5- 8-1999 is concerned a charge sheet was issued vide Memo No. C140/9/1/99- Sise (i) and the disciplinary proceedings were completed by the Inquiring Authority and the petitioner was absolved of all the charges, however, the lower authority than the Competent Authority asked the petitioner to submit additional facts or evidence on two Articles of Charges in Support of the defence, the same was submitted by the petitioner vide Memo No.140/9/1/99-Disc dated 19-10-2001 through speed post on 30-10-2001, the case was closed by the Authority on file, the record of the respondents would bear testimony to this aspect of the matter. The Disciplinary Case dated 18-2-2000 was initiated vide Memo No.C-14011/25/99-Dise dated 18-2-2000 under major penalty clause 28 of the NAA (ECDA) Regulation 1988 again by the Authority lower than the Competent Disciplinary Authority and after the conclusion of the proceedings, the punishment of “Censure” was imposed under the “Minor Penalty”, the disciplinary authority was not appointed to look into this inquiry, petitioner superannuated on 31-10-2001 and filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court asking for the following reliefs:- (i) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant the benefits of next higher scale of DGM (ATC) to the petitioner w.e.f. 1-10-1999 and consequential benefits including arrears of emoluments and post retrial benefit; (ii) Any other writ, direction or order may also be issued in favour of the petitioner as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper.” 10. This writ petition came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 23-12-2008 passed in SWP No. 893/2005 which directed that, (a) The controversy centers around the retrial benefits of the petitioner relating to the period from 1-10-1999 till the date of retirement of the petitioner which has not been released in his favour, (b) The inquiry is clinched, (c) The respondents were directed to examine the case of the petitioner for retiral benefits for the period aforementioned on the touch stone of the rules relevant to the field, (d) further direction was issued to take a decision within one month from the date of the judgment. 11. That immediately after the judgment, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 13-01-2009, requesting them to grant the grade of DGM (ATC) w.e.f 1-10-1999 and release all retrial benefits. In response to this communication, the respondents took a decision not to grant the grade of DGM (ATC) to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was stated to have been charge-sheeted under Major Penalty clause on 18-02-2000 in another case and awarded a penalty of “Censure” on 31.10.2001 (while in service of the Authority), the petitioner was not clear on the date of his retirement i.e. 31-10-2001 and was not held entitled for promotion as DGM (ATC) prior to 31-10-2001. 12. 12. Respondents have filed counter reply, wherein, they have contended that though every citizen is entitled to fundamental rights as guaranteed by the constitution, the petitioner however has no right to maintain the present writ petition as none of his rights have been violated. It is contended that in pursuance of orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 14688 of 1996 Shri V.P. Saini was placed above Shri V.K. Dutta in the seniority list of Aerodrome Officers and accordingly, he was promoted w.e.f. 23-09-93 at par with Shri V.K. Dutta. It is further contended, that the petitioner did commit irregularities in awarding Catering contract at Jammu Airport while working as Aerodrome Officer, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, as such, he is not eligible for placement and other consequential benefits, petitioner Ex. Senior Manager (ATC) Jammu was charge-sheeted under “major penalty” clause on 5th August 1999 for irregularities committed in awarding of catering contract at Jammu, whereas, S/Shri A. Murugesan, GM (Fin) & A. Sen, DGM (Fin) were appointed as IO/PO (inquiry Officer Presenting Officer) respectively to enquire against the charges framed against him, who submitted the inquiry report exonerating petitioner of all the charges framed against him, however, on careful consideration of the inquiry report, the Chairman, AAI disagreed partially with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, the reasons for disagreement with the finding of the Disciplinary Authority were forwarded to petitioner by speed post on 19-10-2001 giving him an opportunity to submit any additional facts or evidence in his defence within seven days from the receipt of the memo for consideration of the Disciplinary Authority, however, it is denied that lower authority than the Competent Authority asked the petitioner to submit additional facts, and finally, it was decided by the Competent Authority to close this case keeping in view that the officer had superannuated on 31-10-2001 and there was no provision in NAA (ECDA) Regulations 1988 for continuation of the case against the retired officers and no formal communication was issued to petitioner in this regard. The answering respondents have contended, that the petitioner was also charge-sheeted under major penalty clause on 18-2-2000 in another case and was awarded the penalty of “CENSURE” on 31-10-2001 while he was in service of the authority, that the petitioner was not clear even on the date of his retirement i.e. 31-10-2001 and as such he is not eligible for back dated promotion i.e. prior to 31-10-2001 and it is denied that above mentioned inquiry was initiated by authority lower than the competent authority, the penalty of Censure was issued vide letter no. C-14011/25/99-Disc. dated 31-10-2001 and communicated to him by Fax on 31-10-2001 itself and the same was received by the petitioner and the fact has also been admitted by him, the copy of the order of “Censure dated 31-10-2001 has been approved by the Competent Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Chairman, whereby, as the petitioner was imposed a penalty of ‘Censure’ on the date of retirement i.e. 31-10-2001 and the imposition of penalty does not entitle an officer to receive the benefits of promotion etc., it is therefore, not true that he was absolved of the charges leveled against him. It is contended, that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 893 of 2005 in which Learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 23-12-2008 directed as under:- “The controversy centers around the retrial benefits of the petitioner relating to the period from 01-10-1999 till the date of retirement of the petitioner which has to been released in his favour because of pendency of the disciplinary inquiry during the said period. Admittedly, the inquiry stands clinched by now. In that view of the matter, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner for retrial benefits for the period aforementioned on the touch stone of the rules relevant to the field with a further direction to take a decision within one month from today”; the answering respondents vide communication dated 21st January 2009 conveyed to the petitioner as under:- “In this connection it is stated that your request has been examined. It is hereby intimated that you were charge sheeted under major penalty clause on 5th August 1999 for irregularities committed in awarding of catering contract at Jammu. This case was not decided till the date of your retirement. It is hereby intimated that you were charge sheeted under major penalty clause on 5th August 1999 for irregularities committed in awarding of catering contract at Jammu. This case was not decided till the date of your retirement. As such, the Competent Authority decided to close this case keeping in view that you had superannuated on 31-10-2001 and there was no provision in NAA (ECDA) Regulations 1988 for continuation of the case against a retired officer. Moreover, it is intimated that you were also charge-sheeted under major penalty clause on 18-2-2000 in another case and awarded the penalty of “CENSURE” on 31-10-2001 (while in service of the Authority). Since, you were not clear on the date of your retirement i.e. 31-10-2001. You are not eligible for back dated promotion as DGM (ATC) prior to 31-10-2001. Moreover, it is intimated that you were also charge-sheeted under major penalty clause on 18-2-2000 in another case and awarded the penalty of “CENSURE” on 31-10-2001 (while in service of the Authority). Since, you were not clear on the date of your retirement i.e. 31-10-2001. You are not eligible for back dated promotion as DGM (ATC) prior to 31-10-2001. The answering respondents have further contended, that they have complied with the judgment dated 23-12-2008 of the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in letter and spirit, the petitioner herein filed contempt petition in the Hon’ble High Court of J&K at Jammu and the Hon’ble High Court vide Judgment dated 1-5-2009 dismissed the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner; the Hon’ble High Court vide Judgment dated 23-12-2008 has directed the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner for retrial benefits for the period w.e.f. 1-10-1999 on the touch stone of the rules relevant to the field with a further direction to take decision within one month from the date of the Judgment, it is denied that the respondents have violated the direction passed by the Hon’ble Court, respondents considered the relevant rules by passing the order dated 21-1-2009; that the inquiry against the petitioner was conducted under NAA (ECDA) Regulations 1988 as the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are not applicable to the respondents, the order imposing penalty has been passed by the competent person, it is denied that the Order suffers from malice in law and fact, the order imposing penalty has been passed under NAA (ECDA) Regulations 1988, petitioner has not been meted out with hostile and discriminatory treatment, the service benefit was allowed to the petitioner as per the judgment of the Court, the proceedings in passing the order have been conducted as per the provisions of the statutes, since the disciplinary proceedings was pending against the petitioner so the petitioner was not granted next hirer scale of DGM (ATC) w.e.f. 1-10-1999. 13. Sh. K.S. Johal Ld. Sr. 13. Sh. K.S. Johal Ld. Sr. Counsel for petitioner, in support of the claim of petitioner, has vehemently argued, that the petitioner though started his career in the Civil Aviation Department which later on merged/converted into Airports Authority of India, but on account of his seniority position in the Department of Civil Aviation Department he alongwith other employees of Civil Airport Department was transferred to the Airports Authority of India as Aerodrome Officer where the petitioner was promoted to grade of Aerodrome Officer vide DGCA letter No. 32013/12/83 dated 29-11-1983 where he continued on the post for more than six (6) years without break and got all the benefits of the post, the effect of seniority in the grade of Aerodrome Officer was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 1-7-1986 vide letter No. A410111/289-PP dated 15-9-1989, his services were regularized on the said post w.e.f. 2-10-1989 by the National Airports Authority of India vide No. A-32013/1/90-EA-1 dated 26-2-1990. It is argued, that on 01-01-1999 a draft seniority list of Aerodrome Officers was issued by the department of respondents, whereby, petitioner’s position was shown at Sr. No. 122 while placing the emblock direct recruits Aerodrome Officers appointed in March 1986 and February 1987 over and above the departmental candidates/ Aerodrome Officers whereby the petitioner was shown as much-much junior to the direct recruits, the aforesaid seniority position was challenged by the petitioner in the Hon’ble J&K High Court in SWP No. 532/1992 which came to be disposed of by a consent order dated 26.08.1992 directing the respondents to consider the representation of petitioner in accordance with rules, however, the department of respondents vide order dated 31-08-1992 disposed off the representation of the petitioner rejecting his claim, whereby, petitioner remained at Sr. No. 122 in the seniority list and the draft seniority list of the Aerodrome Officers became final. No. 122 in the seniority list and the draft seniority list of the Aerodrome Officers became final. It is moreso, argued, that against the order of dismissal of the representation of the petitioner on 31- 08-1992, petitioner preferred writ petition SWP No. 835/1992 before Hon’ble J&K High Court which was finally disposed of by the Single Judge on 21-04-1995 quashing the final seniority list and placing the petitioner over and above the private respondents No. 4 to 43 in the writ petition giving him effects of consequential benefits w.e.f. 31-11-1983, however, the said order was challenged by respondents in LPA bearing No. 175/1995 which was dismissed in limini by the Division Bench of J&K High Court on 07-09- 1995 upholding the judgment/order of Single Bench, but the private respondents challenged the judgment of LPA Bench in LPA No. 175/1995 in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 579/1995, however, the Supreme Court confirmed/upheld the judgment of Division Bench of J&K High Court, whereby, the claim of seniority of petitioner was upheld. It is argued, that as the judgment of Supreme Court aforesaid was rendered on 17-12-2002 after the superannuation/retirement of the petitioner on 31-10- 2001, petitioner again made representation to the respondent’s department to grant him seniority benefits by placing him over and above Mr. V.K. Dutta the Sr. most among direct recruits giving him promotion w.e.f 23-09-1993, though the petitioner was promoted as Sr. Aerodrome Officer w.e.f. 12-06- 1995, but he was not granted promotion on the basis of seniority w.e.f. 23- 09-1993 when his junior V.K. Dutta was given seniority w.e.f. 23-09-1993, lateron petitioner was also given the benefit of first promotion w.e.f. 23-09- 1993 against the post of Senior Aerodrome Officers, however, V.K. Dutta and others the immediate juniors to the petitioner were further promoted and granted higher grade of DGM w.e.f. 01-10-1999 (in the pay scale of Rs. 17500-400-23000) by AAI Hqrs. 17500-400-23000) by AAI Hqrs. Order No. 32013/3/1999 dated 03-11-1999, petitioner also asked for the same benefit by way of representation dated 28.12.2002, but the petitioner was deprived/denied of the benefit as respondents had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him under two major penalties, however, disciplinary proceedings for disciplinary case dated 05-08-1999 vide chargesheet under section 28 of the National Airports Authority NAA(ECDA) Regulation 1988 vide memo No. C140/9/1/99-Dise(i) dated 05-08-1999 and memo No. C-14011/25/99-Dise dated 18-02-2000 were completed by the inquiring authority whereby petitioner was absolved of all the charges for disciplinary, however, again on 18-02-2000 by an authority lower than the competent disciplinary authority punishment of censure was imposed under minor penalty and accordingly petitioner superannuated on 31-10-2001, whereafter, petitioner filed writ petition bearing No. SWP No. 893/2005 which came to be disposed of on 23-12-2008, whereby, petitioner was awarded/held entitled the retrial benefits relating to period w.e.f. 01-10-1999 till his date of retirement and the respondents were directed to examine the case of the petitioner. It is argued that immediately after the aforesaid judgment dated 23-12-2008, petitioner after his superannuation made representation to the respondents on 13-01-2009 requesting them to grant grade of DGM (ATC) w.e.f. 01-10-1999 and release all retrial benefits, but the respondents took a decision not to grant the grade to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was charge sheeted under major penalty of censure on 31-10-2001 while he was in service, therefore, as the petitioner was not clear on the date of his retirement on 31-10-2001 petitioner was held not entitled for promotion as DGM(ATC) prior to his retirement on 31-10-2001. It is vociferously argued, that the censure comes under the heading of “minor penalty” which in the present case has not been imposed by respondent No.1 who is the disciplinary authority but by respondent No.2 who not being a disciplinary authority cannot impose penalty of censure, moreso, as the petitioner has already been exonerated/absolved of all the charges by inquiring authority therefore, he is entitled to all the salary benefits and next higher grade of DGM (ATC) w.e.f. 10-10-1999 from the date his junior officer Mr. V.K Dutta was promoted in the higher grade on 01-10-1999. Reliance has been place on 2007(5) SCC 425 Supreme Court of India [Union of India & Ors. Versus A.N. Mohanan]. 14. Sh. K.K. Pangotra Ld. V.K Dutta was promoted in the higher grade on 01-10-1999. Reliance has been place on 2007(5) SCC 425 Supreme Court of India [Union of India & Ors. Versus A.N. Mohanan]. 14. Sh. K.K. Pangotra Ld. Counsel for respondents, has submitted written arguments, and has also vehemently argued, that the petitioner through the medium of this writ petition is seeking quashment of order of censure dated 31-10-2001 and promotion benefit of next higher scale of DGM (ATC) w.e.f. 1-10-1999, the petitioner was not promoted as enquiry was pending against him even on the date of his retirement i.e. 31-10-2001, the enquiry proceedings were for the charges of irregularities in respect of catering contract at Jammu but the same were dropped because there was no provision under the NAA (ECDA) regulations 1988 for continuation of the case against the retiring officer and the respondents were under obligation to discharge/exonerate the petitioner. It is argued, that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of appeal under Rule 35 of the National Airport Authority (ECDA) Regulations 1988 and the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy of appeal and has filed the writ petition stating that no efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable, the petitioner was charge sheeted on 05-08-1999 for irregularities committed in awarding catering contract at Jammu and also in another charge sheet dated 18-02-2000, the awarding of airport restaurant contract at Jammu wherein the conditions for contract were changed by the petitioner, petitioner was charge sheeted under the major penalty clause on 05-08-1999, the inquiry was conducted by the 1/O who submitted the report exonerating the petitioner, the Chairman AAI disagreed partially with the finding of the 1O, anyhow, it was decided by the competent authority to close the case in view of the fact that officer had superannuated on 31-10-2001 and there was no provision under the NAA (ECDA) Regulations 1988 for continuance of the case against the retired officer. It is argued, that the petitioner was also charge sheeted on major penalty on 18-02-2000 in another case and was awarded with penalty of “censure” on 31-10-2001, the order was approved by the competent disciplinary authority, i.e. the Chairman, the allegation pertains to the month of April, 1999 when NIT conditions were changed regarding eligibility for participation in the tendering process for allotment of contract, which means the petitioner was not clear even on the date when his juniors were promoted on 1-10-1999 though the charges were framed on 18-02-2000 and the enquiry was pending against the petitioner and the punishment of censure was imposed. 15. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record carefully. The first point raised by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that “C ensure” is not an impediment for promotion of the petitioner, deserves serious consideration. As per the stand taken by the respondents censure is a statutory punishment which disentitles the petitioner for his promotion as DGM (ATC). In 2007(5) SCC 425 [Union of India & Ors. Versus A.N. Mohanan] relied by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, the Apex Court held, that even if punishment of “Censure” is inflicted, the DPC recommendation cannot be implemented and promotion cannot be granted, if penalty of “Censure” is inflicted on delinquent employee, sealed cover cannot be opened. However, in the peculiar facts of the instant case, it is to be seen whether action of the respondents in conducting inquiry against petitioner for an unreasonable period of more than 1 ½ year and imposition of punishment of “Censure” there upon the petitioenr can be a valid reason to deprive him from the fruits of promotion as DGM (ATC). Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a case titled Jagjit Singh Vs. Secretary (Writ Petition No. 3273 of 2005 decided on 3rd April 2017) while allowing the writ petition and claim of petitioner (Sub-Engineer Civil) for promotion and observing that “Censure” is not an impediment for consideration of a Govt. employee for promotion in paras 8, 9, 10, 15 & 16 held as under:- 8. The first point raised by the petitioner deserves serious consideration. This is trite law that right to speedy trial and right of completion of inquiry within reasonable time is flowing from Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. employee for promotion in paras 8, 9, 10, 15 & 16 held as under:- 8. The first point raised by the petitioner deserves serious consideration. This is trite law that right to speedy trial and right of completion of inquiry within reasonable time is flowing from Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. A Constituent Bench in A.R. Antulay & other vs. R.S. Nayak and others reported in 1992 (1) SCC 225 , laid down the broad principles for conducting speedy trial. Though the said case pertain to criminal prosecution, the principles enunciated therein are broadly applicable to a plea of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as well (See: 1995 (2) SCC 570 [State of Punjab & others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal]). In Chaman Lal Goyal (Supra), great emphasis was laid for conclusion of inquiry in a speedy manner. It is observed that ultimately the Court has to balance and weigh the various relevant factors- balancing test or balancing process and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in the given case. It was further held that ordinarily speaking where the Court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of the accused has been infringed, the charges or conviction, as the case may be, will be quashed. It needs special emphasis that it is not the only course open to the Court to quash the charges. The Court may pass such other appropriate order as it finds just and equitable in the circumstances of the case. The doctrine of application of balancing process was relied upon in the case of Chaman Lal Goyal (Supra). 9. In catena of judgments, the Court have held that departmental inquiry should be completed within reasonable time. In nutshell, it was held that prosecution cannot be permitted to be converted into persecution. The respondents in their return admitted that the nature of misconduct alleged against the petitioner was only procedural in nature. In the present case, the charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 31.07.1993. The petitioner filed reply on 18.09.1993. Thereafter, the department took more than three years time to appoint an Inquiry Officer, who was appointed on 05.10.1996. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 5.04.2000. The reasons of delay in conducting the inquiry are solely attributable to the respondents. In the present case, the charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 31.07.1993. The petitioner filed reply on 18.09.1993. Thereafter, the department took more than three years time to appoint an Inquiry Officer, who was appointed on 05.10.1996. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 5.04.2000. The reasons of delay in conducting the inquiry are solely attributable to the respondents. The inquiry normally should have been completed within a period of three months to one year from the date of issuance of chargesheet. The Inquiry Officer itself was appointed after three years. If petitioner exercised his right to cross-examine witnesses and Inquiry Officer did not find that such cross- examination was unnecessary or a delaying tactic on the part of the petitioner, the delay cannot be held to be justifiable on this account. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that petitioner has not challenged the inquiry and punishment of “censure” in the present case. The inquiry continued for an unreasonable period of seven years and during these seven years, the petitioner’s fate was kept in the sealed cover. I find substantial force in the argument of the petitioner that if inquiry would have been completed within reasonable time, say within three months or one year, the petitioner would have suffered the punishment of “censure” by the year 1994 itself. The punishment of “censure” does not have any currency/period attached to it. In that event, when the petitioner’s case was considered by the lection/Screening Committee in the year 1999, the sting of departmental inquiry and punishment of “censure” would have been over. 10. As per forgoing analysis, in my considered opinion, the sword of disciplinary proceedings was unnecessarily hanging on the head of the petitioner for an unreasonable long time for no fault on his part. The question is whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, such unreasonable long inquiry and punishment can deprive the petitioner from the fruits of consideration for promotion/grant of benefit of TBPS. In my judgment, it will be travesty of justice if petitioner is deprived from fruits of consideration on the basis of the punishment of “censure” which was imposed after seven long years from the date of issuance of charge-sheet. In my judgment, it will be travesty of justice if petitioner is deprived from fruits of consideration on the basis of the punishment of “censure” which was imposed after seven long years from the date of issuance of charge-sheet. If the matter is viewed from a technical point of view, during the pendency of inquiry and because of imposition of punishment on petitioner, if he was not promoted by the employer, no fault can be found in this action. However, in the peculiar factual matrix of this case this Court cannot shut its eyes and ignore the glaring fact that an inquiry for imposition of minor punishment which should ordinarily take about three months to one year, continued for seven long years and produced unwarranted result of deprivation from fruits of consideration for promotion. The smallest punishment of “censure” became very severe for the petitioner in the present case. Apart from this, an unscrupulous departmental authority can adopt this modus operandi of issuing charge-sheet for imposition of minor penalty to an employer just before the date of DPC and then keep the inquiry pending for a long period of time. During this period, employee will be unable to reap the benefits of consideration. After few years, a small punishment may be imposed, which on the face of it may look small but eventually result in severe deprivation in terms of career progression. In such a situation, petition cannot be dismissed by adopting a pedantic approach. ..................Thus, where injustice caused in apparent and writ large, the Courts cannot be silent expectators. It can mould relief and can ensure that injustice is eradicated. In many cases, Supreme Court has recognized this principle. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, if departmental inquiry aforesaid would have been concluded within reasonable time, the petitioner’s carrier progression in terms of grant of benefit of TBPS etc would not be hampered. The punishment of “censure”, in this case would have been imposed much earlier than the date when petitioner was considered for promotion. Naturally, in that case, the said punishment would not have been a hurdle for the petitioner. This was the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry is completed within reasonable time. The punishment of “censure”, in this case would have been imposed much earlier than the date when petitioner was considered for promotion. Naturally, in that case, the said punishment would not have been a hurdle for the petitioner. This was the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry is completed within reasonable time. Since, the employer has failed to perform its duty which resulted into capricious and arbitrary results, in order to prevent injustice, this Court may itself pass an order or give directions which department should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully conducted the inquiry {See: the underlined portion of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Badri Nath (Supra)}. 16. In order to do complete justice between the parties, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to treat the punishment of “censure” as imposed in the year 1994 i.e., within one year from the date of initiation of departmental inquiry. The aforesaid punishment of “censure”, in other words, should relate back to the year 1994, i.e. within the reasonable period of one year from the date of issuance of charge-sheet. In view of this finding, the said punishment of “censure” will not be an impediment for the petitioner for consideration for TBPS/promotion etc. Hence, the respondents are required to open the sealed cover which was adopted pursuant to selection held on 05.10.1999. The respondents shall forthwith open the sealed cover and implement the recommendation. If petitioner is found fit by the Selection Committee for promotion/grant of TBPS, the respondents shall implement the said recommendation from due date with all consequential benefits. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, where petitioner was all alone willing to be promoted/considered for grant of benefit of TBPS and it was the prolonged inquiry which deprived him from the said benefit, the respondents cannot deny the consequential benefits to the petitioner by applying principles of “no work no pay”. Hence, the petitioner shall reap all consequential benefits in the event he is found fit for grant of promotion/TBPS scale. The entire exercise of opening the sealed cover and implementing the recommendation shall be completed within 30 days from the date communication of copy of this order. Hence, the petitioner shall reap all consequential benefits in the event he is found fit for grant of promotion/TBPS scale. The entire exercise of opening the sealed cover and implementing the recommendation shall be completed within 30 days from the date communication of copy of this order. Ratio of the judgment of “Jagjit Singh’s Case” (Supra) make the legal proposition abundantly clear, that it is trite law that right to completion of inquiry within reasonable time flows from Article 14&21 of the Constitution of India, departmental enquiry should be completed within a reasonable period of time of three (3) months to one (1) year from the date of issuance of charge sheet and if the inquiry continues for longer period of time more than one (1) year, it means that employer has failed to perform its duty and resulted into capricious and arbitrary results depriving the employee from promotion, therefore punishment of “Censure” will not be an impediment for promotion of an employee. Applying the ratio of the judgment of Jagjit Singh’s case (Supra) to the facts of the case of petitioner in hand, it is apt to reiterate here, that the petitioner an Ex- Senior Manager (ATC) Jammu was earlier charge sheeted under major penalty clause on 05-08-1999 for irregularities committed in awarding of catering contract at Jammu, whereas, S/Shri A. Murugesan, GM (Fin) & A. Sen, DGM (Fin) were appointed as IO/PO (inquiry Officer Presenting Officer) respectively to enquire against the charges framed against him, who submitted the inquiry report exonerating petitioner of all the charges framed against him and it was decided by the Competent Authority to close this case keeping in view that the officer had superannuated on 31-10-2001 and there was no provision in NAA (ECDA) Regulations 1988 for continuation of the case against the retired officers. It is pertinent to mention here, that additionally, petitioner was also charge-sheeted under major penalty clause on 18-02-2000 in another case and was awarded the penalty of “CENSURE” on 31-10-2001 while he was in service of the authority. From the perusal of record/pleadings, it clearly transpires, that from the date of charge sheet on 18-02-2000, the inquiry against the petitioner was required to be completed within a period of three (3) months (upto 18-05-2000) or upto one (1) year till 18-02-2001. From the perusal of record/pleadings, it clearly transpires, that from the date of charge sheet on 18-02-2000, the inquiry against the petitioner was required to be completed within a period of three (3) months (upto 18-05-2000) or upto one (1) year till 18-02-2001. However, respondents completed the inquiry on 31-10-2001 after one-n-half (1 ½) years keeping the sword hanging on the neck of the petitioner and dragging the inquiry for unreasonable period of time during which period the petitioner got superannuated on 31-10-2001. In view of the settled position of law aforesaid, in my considered view, it will be travesty of justice if petitioner is deprived from the fruits of consideration on the basis of punishment of censure imposed upon him after longer period of conclusion of inquiry from the date of issuance of charge sheet. If the matter is also viewed from the technical point of view, during the pendency of inquiry and because of imposition of punishment of censure upon the petitioner he was not promoted by the employer/respondents and no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. This court cannot shut it’s eyes ignoring the glaring fact that inquiry against petitioner should have ordinarily been completed within three (3) months to one (1) year, but it continued for more than 1 ½ years and the smallest punishment of “Censure” became very severe for the petitioner. The employer/respondents have failed to perform its duty which resulted into capricious and arbitrary results, and in order to prevent injustice to the petitioner, this court has the power to pass orders/directions to the respondents, and in view of the settled position of law (Supra) the said “Censure” therefore is not an impediment for according the promotion due to the petitioner for the period when he was in service. 16. The 2nd point/argument urged by Ld. Counsel for petitioner is, whether the petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits including arrears of emoluments w.e.f. 10-10-1999.? It is the precise case of petitioner that he started his carrier as a Govt. 16. The 2nd point/argument urged by Ld. Counsel for petitioner is, whether the petitioner is entitled to consequential benefits including arrears of emoluments w.e.f. 10-10-1999.? It is the precise case of petitioner that he started his carrier as a Govt. employee in Civil Aviation Department which lateron got merged into Airports Authority of India and on account of his seniority position in the department of Civil Aviation Department he alongwith other employees of Civil Airport Department was transferred to the Airports Authority of India as Aerodrome Officer, where the petitioner was promoted to grade of Aerodrome Officer vide DGCA letter No. 32013/12/83 dated 29-11-1983 where he continued on the post for more than six (6) years without break and got all the benefits of the post, the effect of seniority in the grade of Aerodrome Officer was given to the petitioner w.e.f. 1-7-1986 vide letter No. A410111/289-PP dated 15-9-1989, his services were regularized on the said post w.e.f. 2-10-1989 by the National Airports Authority of India vide No. A-32013/ 1/90-EA-1 dated 26-2-1990. It is apt to mention here that, on 01-01-1991 a draft seniority list of Aerodrome Officers was issued by the department of respondents vide letter No. 2/31/G9-GAD dated 31-03-1991 wherein petitioner’s position was shown at S. No. 122 while placing the emblock direct recruits Aerodrome Officers appointed in March 1986 & February 1987 over and above the departmental candidates-Aerodrome Officers. Petitioner challenged his seniority in the Hon’ble High Court of J&K in SWP No. 835/1992 (Annexure-A) wherein Hon’ble J&K High Court vide judgment/order dated 21-04-1995 while accepting/allowing the writ petition of petitioner and observing that impugned seniority list fixing the seniority of petitioner at S. No.122 and that of the respondents at S. No. 57-114 is not maintainable and quashing the impugned seniority list in question No.5 of the order held as under:- “Question No.5 In view of the position that has emerged from the aforesaid discussion it can conveniently and justifiably be said that the direct recruits i.e. the respondents 5-43 who were shown as senior and placed higher up in the impugned seniority list have not been rightly and legally placed. Similarly, the placement of the petitioner and other departmental promotes in the said seniority list is also illegal, and in contravention of constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 14&16 of the constitution of India. Similarly, the placement of the petitioner and other departmental promotes in the said seniority list is also illegal, and in contravention of constitutional guarantees enshrined in Articles 14&16 of the constitution of India. The impugned seniority list fixing the seniority of the petitioner at S. No.122 and that of the respondents at Sr. NO. 57-114 is not sustainable. The impugned seniority list published under No. 2/31/89- GAD dated 21-03-1991 is hereby quashed to the extent it fixes the seniority of the respondents 5-43 and the departmental promotes including the petitioner. Consequently by a writ of mandamus the respondents 2 and 3 are hereby commanded to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner as also other departmental promotees and the respondents 5-43 showing the petitioner and departmental promotees as senior to the respondents 5-43 on the basis of their entry into the cadre of Aerodrome Officers by counting their adhoc service towards their authority and issuing a fresh seniority list by making necessary correction as directed. The respondents are further commanded to consider the petitioner for his promotion to the next higher post of Senior Aerodrome Officer keeping in view of the seniority of the petitioner over and above respondents 5-43. Such consideration shall be accorded to the petitioner from the date respondents 5-43 were promoted with all consequential benefits, in case he is found fit for promotion to the next date of hearing”. In light of the judgment of Hon’ble J&K High Court aforesaid the respondents were commanded to consider petitioner’s case for promotion to the next higher post of Sr. Aerodrome Officer keeping in view seniority of petitioner over and above Respondents 5 -43 were promoted. Against the order of Single Bench of J&K High Court dated 21-04-1995 aforesaid respondents/Chairman Airports Authority of India filed letters patents appeal LPA(SW) No. 175/1995 before Division Bench of J&K High Court which dismissed the LPA vide its judgment/order dated 07-09-1995 and while deciding the LPA the Division Bench while maintaining the seniority of petitioner in the concluding para of the judgment held as under:- “On all counts, therefore, we are convinced that respondent NO.1 was entitled to count his service rendered by him on adhoc basis for reckoning his seniority. Depriving him of this benefit would have amounted to negation of the principles of natural justice the spirit of the rules relating to promotion as existed at the relevant time. Depriving him of this benefit would have amounted to negation of the principles of natural justice the spirit of the rules relating to promotion as existed at the relevant time. We do not see any reason to disturb the findings arrived at by the Learned Single Judge. The judgment under appeal is based on second consideration. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limini. Connected CMP shall stand disposed of.” Again the respondents presented Civil Appeal No. 14588 of 1996 titled V.K. Dutta & Ors Versus V.P. Saini and Ors. before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 579/1995 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld/confirmed the judgment of Division Bench of J&K High Court, whereby, the claim of seniority of petitioner was upheld and as the judgment of Supreme Court was passed in 17-12-2002 after the retirement/ superannuation of petitioner on 31-10-2021, therefore, in pursuance of the aforesaid Supreme Court’s judgment dated 17-12-2002 petitioner made a representation to the department of respondent to grant him necessary seniority benefits over and above Mr. V.K. Dutta the Sr. most among direct recruits after giving him seniority w.e.f. 23-09-1993. It is unambiguously reiterated here, that by the judgment of Supreme Court dated 12-12-2002 Hon’ble Supreme C ourt clarified that as respondent N o.1 (petitioner) has already retired and the appellants are not prejudiced, respondent No.1 (petitioner herein) shall not be deprived of his retrial benefits in accordance with law. Thereafter, (vide Annexure-D) petitioner made representation to the department of respondents regarding his claim of seniority in view of order of the Supreme Court judgment/order dated 17-12-2002 affirming the claim of petitioner for seniority and all retrial benefits viz; release of arrears of retirement benefits based on his promotion w.e.f. 23-09-1993. Annexure- E dated 03-11-1999 to the writ petition is communication made by Airports Authority of India to (i) Regional Executive Director Airports Authority of India & (ii) Principal Civil Aviation Training College Bamuli Allahabad which clearly depicts that the Chairman has approved grant of next higher scale of Rs. 7500-9900 to as many as 29 candidates/employees wherein at S. No. 2 Mr. V.K. Dutta has been shown promoted to the next higher scale w.e.f. 01-10-1999. Annexure-PE dated 5th September 2003 to the petition is a communication by one K.C. Malhotra Addl. General Manager (Pers) to Sh. 7500-9900 to as many as 29 candidates/employees wherein at S. No. 2 Mr. V.K. Dutta has been shown promoted to the next higher scale w.e.f. 01-10-1999. Annexure-PE dated 5th September 2003 to the petition is a communication by one K.C. Malhotra Addl. General Manager (Pers) to Sh. V.P Saini petitioner which clearly depicts, that the grant of next higher scale of DGM(ATC) w.e.f. 01-10-1999, placement as Asstt. General Manager (ATC) w.e.f 01-04-2000 and promotion as DGM (ATC) w.e.f. 12- 10-2000 was not granted to the petitioner as the petitioner was not clear from vigilance/disciplinary angle till his retirement on 31-10-2001 and was also imposed penalty of censure. It is apt to mention here, that again petitioner approached Hon’ble Supreme Court in contempt petition which was dismissed, howevver, the petitioner again filed writ petition in Hon’ble J&K High Court bearing SWP No. 893/2005 whierin while disposing the writ petition vide its order dated 23-12-2008 the Hon’ble J&K High Court admitted the writ petition by allowing the case of petitioner for all the retiral benefits and passed the following order:- “Heard admit. Notice afresh. Mr. Inderjit Gupta accept notice on behalf of respondents and adopts the reply filed as cuonter. The controversy centers around the retiral benefits of the petitioner reating to the preriod from 01-10-1999 till the date of retirement of the petitioner which has not been released in his favour because of pendency of the disciplinary inquiry during the said period. Admittedly, the inquiry stantds clinched by now. In that view of the matter, it is approperiate to direct the respondents to examine the claim if the petitioner for retiral benefits for the period aforementioned on the touch stone of the rules relevant to the field with a further diretion to take a decision within one month from today. Disposed of”. Vide aforesaid judgment/order dated 23-12-2008 petitioner has been granted retiral benefits from the period w.e.f. 01-10-1999 till the date of his retirement on 31-10-2001. Petitioner therefore, made representation to respondent No.1 on 13-01-2009 for granting him grade of DGM(ATC) w.e.f. 01-10-1999 and releaseing of retiral benefits. Vide Annexiure-G on 21-10-2009 respondents after considering/examining the request of petitioner rejected the case of petitioner for back date promotion as DGM(ATC) prior to his retirement on 31-10-2001 on the ground that petitioner was awarded penalty of “censure” on 08-02-2000 and was not clear on the date of his retirement on 31-10-2001. Vide Annexiure-G on 21-10-2009 respondents after considering/examining the request of petitioner rejected the case of petitioner for back date promotion as DGM(ATC) prior to his retirement on 31-10-2001 on the ground that petitioner was awarded penalty of “censure” on 08-02-2000 and was not clear on the date of his retirement on 31-10-2001. As discussed above, it is setted position of law that “Censure” is not an impediment for according the promotion due to the petitioner for the period when he was in service. Moreso, by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12-12-2002 it has been clarified that as respondent No.1 (petitioner) has already retired and the appellants (respondents) are not prejudiced, respondent No.1 (petitioner herein) shall not be deprived of his retrial benefits in accordance with law. Therefore, in compliance to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 12-12-2002 (aforesaid) the petitioner is entitled to the consequential benefits including arrears of emoluments w.e.f. 10-10-1999. The writ petition, is therefore, allowed. Accordingly, “by the writ of certiorari, the proceedings initiated by the respondents which resulted into penalty of “C ensure” dated 31-10-2001 against petitioner disentitling him for back dated promotion to the post of DGM (ATC) and the order of “C ensure” issued on 31-10-2001 conveyed to the petitioner vide communication No. C- 18011/01/2000-EA dated 21-01-2009 are hereby quashed, and by the writ of mandamus, the respondents are directed/commanded to grant the benefit of next higher scale of DGM (ATC) to the petitioner (now retired) w.e.f. 10-01- 1999 alongwith consequential benefits including arrears of emoluments and post retrial benefits”. 17. Disposed of accordingly.