ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-Union of India (hereinafter to be referred as the “employer”) challenging the order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as the “Tribunal”) whereby the application of the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the “employee”) has been allowed and the impugned memorandum dated 01.03.2021 issued to him has been quashed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the employee was served with a memorandum issued by the employer dated 01.03.2021 and due to its pendency the employee was denied promotion twice. The employee challenged the said memorandum by filing a writ petition before the Single Bench of this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5451/2021, which was lateron transferred to the learned Tribunal by the Single Bench of this Court vide order 20.12.2021. The same was registered by the Tribunal as Transferred Application No.1/2022. 3. The learned Tribunal after hearing counsel for the parties, by a detailed judgment allowed the said Transferred Application and quashed the memorandum dated 01.03.2021 issued to the employee vide its order dated 27.01.2022. Being aggrieved from the order of the Tribunal dated 27.01.2022 the present writ petition has been filed by the employer. 4. Learned counsel for the employer submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in quashing the memorandum on the ground of delay in issuing the said memorandum to the employee. Counsel further submits that the employer has explained the delay in issuing the memorandum to the employee in their reply submitted before the Tribunal as the record was voluminous and thus certain time was consumed in investigating the matter and preparing the charges and lastly prayed for allowing the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the employee opposed the submissions made by counsel for the employer and submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the employee opposed the submissions made by counsel for the employer and submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned and the same does not require any interference by this Court. 6. He further submits that during pendency of the present writ petition before this Court, after conducting enquiry the employee has been exonerated from all the charges on 02.06.2023 but no final order as yet has been passed by the employer in this regard and while making a prayer for dismissal of the writ petition further submitted that at least the employer be directed to consider the case of the employee for all his promotions. 7. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record including the order of the Tribunal. 8. The learned Tribunal, while allowing the writ petition, considered the matter in detail and in para Nos. 13, 15, 16 and 18 held as under :- “13. We observe that the respondents have issued a Memorandum dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure-1) under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1964 to the applicant for apparent violation of Rules 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(xviii), 3(1)(xxi) on charges of not supervising his sub-ordinate in a search conducted by IT Department in the year 2011 and for which the Appraisal report was submitted in 2011 itself. We find several lacunas/irregularities/infirmities in the said Memorandum. Firstly, there is an unexplained and inordinate delay of 10 years in issuing Memorandum from the incident of search. Secondly, the supervisory officers have graded the applicant as 'Outstanding' and have given praiseworthy comments in his APAR for the Financial Year 2011-12 when the incident of search took place and Appraisal Report prepared. Thirdly, there is no allegation in Memorandum pertaining to any extraneous consideration or malafide or any dishonesty or gross negligence or any loss of revenue to the Government; or any blatant violation of systems and procedures or failure to keep his superiors informed or lack of integrity found in the applicant. Thirdly, there is no allegation in Memorandum pertaining to any extraneous consideration or malafide or any dishonesty or gross negligence or any loss of revenue to the Government; or any blatant violation of systems and procedures or failure to keep his superiors informed or lack of integrity found in the applicant. Fourthly, when scrutiny was conducted at different levels and there were two independent operational hierarchies, then alone applicant cannot be faulted; Fifthly, though superior officers upon whom was vested responsibility of search and finalizing and approving the Appraisal Report, then applicant alone cannot be issued with Memorandum; Sixthly, there is not an iota of mention about the alleged lapses of the DDIT on the basis of which applicant is alleged about lack of supervision as the same are non-existent and hypothetical; Seventhly, seized documents and data were kept in the custody of the subordinate who was admittedly duty bound to examine the seized material; Eighthly, different yardsticks used for different officers and punitive yardstick on the applicant; Ninthly, no cognizance taken of relevant provisions of Search & Seizure Manual towards the responsibility of supervision of search, post search investigation, finalization and approval of Appraisal Report; Tenthly, there was no occasion to issue Memorandum to the applicant for supervisory lapses without proving primary charges against the subordinates. 15. After going through the pleadings of the respondents, we find that no cogent reasons are given by them nor any valid explanation has been given for the inordinate delay in issuing memorandum after 10 years of search. We have not been shown any specific lapse on the part of the applicant which amounts to misconduct or loss of revenue to the Government or any charges of corruption against the applicant. Respondents have also failed to point out any particular violation of procedure or system on the part of the applicant or lack of integrity on the part of the applicant. Even perusal of the list of Witnesses shows that both the witnesses listed in Annexure IV of the Memorandum are unnamed which is clear that the respondents do not have any particular witness to sustain the charges leveled against the applicant. Even perusal of the list of Witnesses shows that both the witnesses listed in Annexure IV of the Memorandum are unnamed which is clear that the respondents do not have any particular witness to sustain the charges leveled against the applicant. The only allegation leveled by the respondents is that the applicant did not supervise his subordinate in the search while this stand of the respondents is itself contradictory as the respondents have themselves given praiseworthy comments and his supervisory performance in his APAR is shown as 'Outstanding' as in the applicant's APAR for financial year 2011-12. The comments of the Reporting Officer - DIT (Inv)-II, Mumbai are as under:- "Shri Ajay Chandra is a good planner & equally good executor of the work. His analytical ability is par excellence. So is his technical competence and drafting. His notes forwarding Appraisal Reports are very succinct, crisp and cogent. Even with shortage of manpower he has delivered effectively and efficiently." The comments of the Reviewing Officer - the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai are as under: "Shri Ajay Chandra is a rare combination of competence, probity, and good management skills. He always rises to the occasion, no matter how difficult the challenge." It is clear that respondents, besides raising point of jurisdiction of C.A.T. and applicant obtaining interim stay from Hon'ble High Court, have no grounds to challenge. Though it is clear that C.A.T. has jurisdiction in service matters and the applicant has approached the Hon'ble High Court for raising his grievances and obtained stay from the Hon'ble High Court, but for the same, the applicant cannot be faulted as at that relevant time, the C.A.T. was not functioning and, thus, only option left with the applicant, was to knock the doors of the Hon'ble High Court and after hearing the applicant, the Hon'ble High Court has granted interim stay on the Memorandum dated 01.03.2021 issued to the applicant. 16. 16. Coming to the grounds raised by the applicant, we find force in them as well as coming to the judgments/orders relied by the applicant, we are in agreement with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Bani Singh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and they were also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. As far as the present case is concerned, the same is the situation in the present case as compared to that of Bani Singh (supra). Coming to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Chaman Lal Goyal (supra), wherein it has been observed that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be issued after a lapse of reasonable time. In the said case, there was delay of only 52 years but in the present case, Memorandum is issued after around 10 years of the search. Coming to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of N. Radhakishan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that 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 same is the situation in the present case as compared to that of N. Radhakishan (supra). It is clear that a delinquent has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. 18. It is well settled position in law as to whether delay in framing charges against the applicant has prejudiced him. In a disciplinary proceeding, the nature of charges and alleged misconduct generally holds the field. There are two types of misconduct, firstly which are serious and grave misconducts involving misappropriation, embezzlement, corruption, moral turpitude, etc. 18. It is well settled position in law as to whether delay in framing charges against the applicant has prejudiced him. In a disciplinary proceeding, the nature of charges and alleged misconduct generally holds the field. There are two types of misconduct, firstly which are serious and grave misconducts involving misappropriation, embezzlement, corruption, moral turpitude, etc. and secondly which are minor procedural and supervisory lapses. We are aware of the several legal pronouncements that normally charge sheets should not be interfered with at interlocutory stage but the Hon'ble Apex Court on the other hand in catena of judgments have held that in case of minor administrative and procedural lapses, if there was no justification as to the inordinate delay in initiating enquiry, framing of charges and imposing penalty which would prejudice the delinquent employee, the departmental proceeding and the penalty so imposed would be illegal. 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. It is clear that if the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent is writ large on the face of it, unless it can be shown that the delinquent is responsible for the delay and there is complete justification for the delay. In the present case in hand, applicant is not charged of any corruption or misappropriation, or embezzlement or moral turpitude. The alleged misconduct is only supervisory and procedural in nature if at all, as we understand but we do not find so. Delay in the present case has no doubt seriously prejudiced the applicant as the respondents have taken more than 10 years to issue a Memorandum and the same would amount to denial of principles of natural justice. Besides this, we also find total non- application of mind on the part of the respondents in issuing the Memorandum and total discrimination towards the applicant when in hierarchy he is not the officer who has approved the Appraisal Report and the concerned officers who were duty bound for the same are left scot free. Normally, we would not have interfered in the cases where the disciplinary proceedings have commenced or about to commence, but after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be futile exercise in this case so as to allow the respondents to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. Normally, we would not have interfered in the cases where the disciplinary proceedings have commenced or about to commence, but after taking into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be futile exercise in this case so as to allow the respondents to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, we would like to observe that a Sword of Damocles cannot be allowed to be kept hanging over the head of the delinquent employee as the Memorandum itself suffers from several infirmities and, thus, are of the opinion that the Memorandum deserves to be set aside.” 9. In our considered view the employee alone was not responsible for the lapse in search and admittedly the superior officers who were also vested with the responsibility of search and finally approving the appraisal report, none of them has been issued any memorandum by the employer and further the alleged incident pertains to the year 2011 whereas the memorandum for supervisory negligence has been issued to the employee and that too after a delay of ten years i.e. in the year 2021. We are also not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the employer in issuing the memorandum to the employee after such an inordinate delay, therefore, in our considered view the learned Tribunal has rightly allowed the application of the employee. 10. We have also considered the fact that without disclosing the source of information the employer has issued the memorandum to the employee with regard to the supervisory negligence and the plea taken by the counsel for the employer that the information was received from the source who does not want to be disclosed, is also not believable. In the facts and circumstances before us, it seems that some complaint has been made without naming anyone in the department against the employee just to harass the employee and to deprive him from his promotional avenues. 11. We have also considered the fact that on account of the issuance of the memorandum the employee has been denied promotion twice. 12. In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal. 13. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. 11. We have also considered the fact that on account of the issuance of the memorandum the employee has been denied promotion twice. 12. In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal. 13. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Since we have dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the employer, considering the fact that the promotion has been denied to the employee twice, as observed above, we expect from the employer to consider the case of the employee for promotional benefits, if he is so entitled.