JUDGMENT : (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.) 1. By filing this intra court Appeal, the appellant-writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2005 of 2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-appellant before the learned Single Judge was dismissed. In the writ petition mainly following prayers were made: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the Resolution contained in Memo No. 5/Arop-1-342/2014-26125 (HRMS) Ranchi dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure-12) by which the punishment for withholding three increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner under the provision of Rule 14(VI) of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016. AND (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the Resolution contained in Memo No. 5/Aarop-1-342-2014-5451(HRMS) Ranchi dated 19.5.2020 (Annexure-13) by which the review application preferred by the petitioner has also been considered and punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority has not been interfered meaning thereby that the review application preferred by the petitioner was rejected. AND (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to provide all the three increments with consequential benefits after setting aside the impugned order of punishment and entire arrear should be calculated and paid to the petitioner along with interest. 2. The facts of the case which are not much in dispute can be enumerated in chronological manner as hereunder: (i) On 22.02.2005, the writ petitioner-a member of Jharkhand State Administrative Service while posted as B.D.O., Chandwa has given in writing to Mr. Mahesh Mochi working at the relevant time as Nazir, Chandwa Block vide letter no. 28(II) dated 22.02.2005 directing the Nazir to make the entry in the cash book at the appropriate time since the said was not done by him earlier and writ petitioner had also indicated in the aforesaid letter that the general cash book which disclosed the entries made, is not proper and therefore, the concerned Nazir was directed to make proper entry and keep the cash book better. (ii) On 31.03.2006 vide Letter No. 23(I) the writ petitioner had written to the then Nazir, Chandwa Block, categorically stating that there are errors in the different pages of the cash book and accordingly, the then Nazir was directed to rectify the gross negligence on his part by correcting the concerned pages and making the entry properly in detail. The said letter was issued as a show cause asking the Nazir to reply immediately. (iii) On 31.03.2006 vide letter no. 24(I), the writ petitioner also wrote to the then Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, bringing into his knowledge the clerical mistake in the cash book due to the gross negligence of Nazir and giving details of irregularity committed by the Nazir, and had requested to transfer him. A copy of the said letter was also given to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar. (iv) On 22.01.2007 the writ petitioner was transferred from B.D.O. Chandwa to B.D.O. Baghmara and accordingly she gave the charge. (v) At the time of handing over the charge, the writ petitioner gave the cash book to her successor in which the total balance amount has been shown as 2,92,26,252.03 and the same amount has been shown in the bank account. (vi) On 27.07.2007 Audit Team of the Office of the Accountant General conducted audit for Chandwa Block and raised objection in relation to the excess payment/misappropriation of Rs. 5,60,000/- for which the Audit Compliance Report was sent vide Letter No. 294 by the B.D.O. Chandwa to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar. (vii) On 20.12.2007 the Deputy Development Commissioner, Latehar examined the issues regarding the embezzlement and gave a very categorical finding vide Letter No. 85 that out of total estimated cost of Rs.11,45,800.00 of the scheme, only a sum of Rs. 11,08,295.35 was paid which is within the estimated price. Thus, there is no question of any defalcation/embezzlement. (viii) On 17.07.2009 State Audit Team of the Finance Department, in Letter No. 62, considered the Audit Compliance Report sent by the B.D.O. and no ground of difference has been shown by the State Audit Team. (ix) On 15.05.2017 vide Letter No. 977 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded Prapatra “K” to the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand, Ranchi and in the said letter, it is categorically stated that the charge-sheet relates to the embezzlement of Rs. (ix) On 15.05.2017 vide Letter No. 977 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded Prapatra “K” to the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Jharkhand, Ranchi and in the said letter, it is categorically stated that the charge-sheet relates to the embezzlement of Rs. 5.16 lakhs towards the execution of the scheme. (x) On 25.05.2017 Charge-sheet was issued to the writ petitioner vide Resolution contained in Memo No. 6518 under the signature of Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha by which departmental proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner for an occurrence which took place in the financial year 2005- 2006. (xi) On 01.07.2017 the writ petitioner filed a detailed reply before the Enquiry Officer denying the allegations and all the aforesaid points were taken. (xii) On 01.08.2017 and 10.09.2017, two replies were submitted by the Department before the Enquiry Officer. (xiii) On 22.11.2018 enquiry was concluded and Enquiry Report was submitted and served upon the writ petitioner. (xiv) On 24.05.2019 the writ petitioner submitted reply to the second show cause notice. (xv) On 15.10.2019 the Respondent Authorities passed the Impugned Order with punishment withholding three increments with cumulative effect. (xvi) On 19.05.2020, a Review Petition preferred by the writ petitioner has been disposed of without interfering with the order of punishment. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner would assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application of the writ petitioner on the ground that the alleged misconduct relates to the year 2006 and as per the Audit Report dated 27.07.2007 the corrections made in the cash book was detected, but it took almost 10 years for some initiation of proceeding by drawing of charge-sheet against the writ petitioner on 25.05.2017. Thus, on the ground of delay itself the learned counsel would argue that the departmental proceeding should be quashed. Additionally, the learned counsel would further submit that the writ petitioner has been punished after holding that she is guilty of temporary misappropriation of funds, however, the charge-sheet issued against her does not contain a charge regarding misappropriation of funds and there is no clear finding by the Enquiry Officer that she in fact indulged in misappropriation of fund. 4. Additionally, the learned counsel would further submit that the writ petitioner has been punished after holding that she is guilty of temporary misappropriation of funds, however, the charge-sheet issued against her does not contain a charge regarding misappropriation of funds and there is no clear finding by the Enquiry Officer that she in fact indulged in misappropriation of fund. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand would submit that the learned Single Judge has correctly decided that delay in this case would not vitiate the departmental proceeding and that there is enough material about the defalcation of the funds by the writ petitioner. 5. A careful examination of the charge-sheet reveals that two charges were framed against the writ petitioner-appellant. The first charge has not been proved. At page 47 of the brief the charge has been described. 5. A careful examination of the charge-sheet reveals that two charges were framed against the writ petitioner-appellant. The first charge has not been proved. At page 47 of the brief the charge has been described. It is appropriate to take note of the exact words used in charge no.II as under: ^^mi;qZDr lgk;d jksdM+iath esa bl ;kstuk esa dqy uxn fleasV ,oa xsgw¡ dks feykdj 16]03]199-45 ¼lksyg yk[k rhu gtkj ,d lkS fuukucs :0 iSarkyhl iSlk½ dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA lgk;d jksdM+ iath ds i`"B la[;k 154] 156 ,oa 157 esa ckn esa yky L;kgh ls vkids }kjk Not paid > vafdr fd;k x;k gSA tcfd Nk;k vfHkys[k ds vkns'k Qyd esa vfHkJo esa Hkqxrku izkfIr dk gLrk{kj gSA vkids }kjk ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd bu lHkh dk izfof"V fnukad 31-03-2006 ds lgk;d jksdM+iath ds izkfIr 'kh"kZ esa dj nh xbZ gS] ijUrq fnukad 31-03-2006 ds lgk;d ,oa lkekU; iath ds voyksdu ls ;g ik;k x;k fd vkids }kjk lgk;d jksdM+iath esa gLrk{kj djus ds mijkar uhps yky L;kgh ls dqy 5]30]939-15 ¼ikap yk[k rhl gtkj ukS lkS mupkyhl :0 iUnzg iSls½ dh izfof"V dh xbZ] ijUrq blesa tksM+ esa dksbZ vUrj ugha fd;k x;kA vkids }kjk uhps dh xbZ izfof"V dks egkys[kkdkj ds vads{k.k ny }kjk viuh isafly ls dkV fn;k x;k gS ,oa foRr foHkkx ds vads{k.k ny ds }kjk gjh isafly ls ?ksj fn;k x;k gS] ftlls ;g Li"V gS fd vads{k.k ny us vkids }kjk ckn esa dh xbZ izfof"V dks ugha ekuk gSA jksdM+iath ds vuqlkj vfHkdrkZ dks dqy 10]00]000-00 ¼nl yk[k½ :0 dk Hkqxrku fd;k x;k tcfd Nk;k vfHkys[k esa 2]70]000-00 :0 ¼nks yk[k lRrj gtkj½ dh izfof"V dh xbZ gSA blls ;g Li"V gS fd ewy vfHkys[k ,oa lgk;d@lekU; jksdM+iath esa vkids }kjk NsM+NkM+ dh x;h gSA bl izdkj lgk;d jksdM+ iath] lkekU; jksdM+ iath ,oa ;kstuk la[;k 12@05&06 ds vfHkys[k ls ;g Li"V gS fd Jherh T;ksRluk flag us foRr foHkkx ds vads{k.k ny dks ckn esa fufeZr vfHkys[k izLrqr dj O;; dks izkDdfyr jkf'k ls feyku djus dk vlQy iz;kl fd;k x;k] rRdkyhu funs'kd] Mh0vkj0Mh0,0 ds tkap izfrosnu rFkk egkys[kkdkj ds fujh{k.k izfrosnu esa tks xyrh idM+h xbZ gS ds vkyksd esa Jherh T;ksRluk flag] rRdkyhu iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh] panok ij vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ gsrq vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA^^ 6. Thus, the allegation against the appellant-writ petitioner is that she had interpolated the cash book, however, it is further borne out from the records that in the departmental enquiry the writ petitioner though has explained the reasons for the corrections made in accordance with the provisions of law it has not been considered by the Enquiry Officer. Moreover, no evidence was led on behalf of the department against the appellant to prove the charge. It is also apparent from the records that the Enquiry Officer basing on documents produced before him came to conclusion and passed a final order. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 SCC 570 has held that a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi- judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must found to have been proved. The Enquiry Officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in a disciplinary proceeding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court took into the fact that no witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the F.I.R. which could not have been treated as the evidence. Similar is the facts in this case. The Audit Report was produced as a document relied upon by the department but no witness was examined to prove the same. 8. The writ petitioner has relied upon certain letters especially letter dated 22.02.2005 and 31.03.2006 wherein directions were given to the Nazir stating that errors are there in different pages of the cash book and he was directed to rectify the gross negligence on his part. This aspect of the case was never considered by the Enquiry Officer. The Deputy Development Commissioner on 20.12.2007 examined the issue regarding embezzlement and gave a very categorical finding vide letter no. 85 that out of total estimated cost of Rs.11,45,800/- of the scheme only a sum of Rs.11,08,295.35 was paid which is within the estimated price. This aspect of the case was never considered by the Enquiry Officer. The Deputy Development Commissioner on 20.12.2007 examined the issue regarding embezzlement and gave a very categorical finding vide letter no. 85 that out of total estimated cost of Rs.11,45,800/- of the scheme only a sum of Rs.11,08,295.35 was paid which is within the estimated price. Thus, there is no question of any defalcation/embezzlement. Thus, in taking the entire facts into consideration, viz., inaction of the Enquiry Officer in not recording evidence of witnesses who would have proved the documents, not affording any reasonable opportunity of cross examining the witnesses and leading rebuttal evidence to the writ petitioner, the disciplinary authority awarding punishment for holding that the writ petitioner is guilty of embezzlement of funds when there is no specific charge regarding the same, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge committed error in not interfering with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and punishment awarded thereafter. It is true that in cases of departmental proceeding the court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 should not sit in an appeal or re-asses the evidence, but where there is no evidence at all on record and the principles of natural justice has been grossly violated whereby no reasonable opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses with respect to the documents relied upon has been afforded to the appellant the Court should step in and pass appropriate order holding that the departmental proceeding is not proper and it requires interference of this Court. 9. As far as the delay is concerned there is no dispute of the fact that the incidence relates to the year 2005-06. The Audit was conducted in July, 2007 and the report was submitted on 27.07.2007. On 20.12.2007 the Deputy Development Commissioner put forth a compliance report. On 17.07.2009 the State Audit Team of the Finance Department considered the Audit Compliance Report sent by the B.D.O. and no ground of difference has been shown by the State Audit Team. On 25.05.2017, charge-sheet was issued to the writ petitioner. Thus, there is a delay of about nine and half years in initiating the departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner. On 25.05.2017, charge-sheet was issued to the writ petitioner. Thus, there is a delay of about nine and half years in initiating the departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has considered that the State Audit Team of the Finance Department examined the matter and gave its report on 17.07.2009 and the matter was taken up by the Deputy Commissioner on 15.07.2017. The learned Single Judge further held that unexplained period of so-called delay in less than eight years which in the considered view of the Court is not enough to call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the department. However, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a delay of eight years the alleged misconduct which relates to correction of certain entry in the cash book took place in the year 2005 – 2006 and as per the case of the Department it was detected in the audit made by the office of the Accountant General on 27.07.2007 and a letter was sent to the concerned department. The charge-sheet as it is mentioned earlier was issued on 25.05.2015. Thus, there is clear delay of two months short of 10 years in initiation of departmental proceeding. In our considered opinion such delay vitiates the departmental proceeding. There is absolutely no explanation why the delay has been committed. Even if it is taken that the State Audit Team examined the case on 17.07.2019 then also it is not clear why the department took about eight years in deciding to frame charges against the writ petitioner. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Bani Singh and another 1990 (Supp) SCC 738 has also approved the order passed by the Tribunal quashing the proceedings on the ground that inordinate delay of 12 years in issuing the charge memo and absence of satisfactory explanation would definitely vitiate the enquiry. We may add here that no hard and fast rule nor strait-jacket formula can be laid down regarding the quantum of delay for quashing of the departmental proceeding. Such decisions are to be taken on the basis of peculiar facts of the case. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid consideration viz. We may add here that no hard and fast rule nor strait-jacket formula can be laid down regarding the quantum of delay for quashing of the departmental proceeding. Such decisions are to be taken on the basis of peculiar facts of the case. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid consideration viz. not framing of charge regarding any defalcation by the appellant, non-examination of any of the witness to prove the case of the Department by the Enquiry Officer, consequently denial of an opportunity to cross examine of the witnesses by the appellant, awarding punishment exceeding the charge-sheet submitted against the appellant and the inordinate delay of about 10 years in initiating a departmental proceeding, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant-writ petitioner should be granted the relief prayed for. 12. Thus, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 09.09.2022 in W.P.(S) No. 2005 of 2020 is hereby, set aside. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is allowed. Writ of certiorari is issued quashing the chargesheet, the enquiry report, the order passed by the appellate and revisional authority as well as the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority. A writ of mandamus is issued to consider the consequential benefits of the writ petitioner including consideration of her case for promotion with retrospective effect. 13. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner shall file the requisites in Registry to communicate the order to the respondents. 16. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.