Judgment

V. RAMASWAMI, J.:- Civil Appeal No. 3046 of 1988 has been filed against the order dated 16-12-1987 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in O.A. No. 102 of 1987 and Civil Appeal No. 3045 of 1988 has been filed against the order of the same Tribunal dated 25th January, 1988 in O.A. No. 201 of 1986.

2. O.A. No. 201 of 1986 is a petition filed by the respondent, Bani Singh, I.P.S. Officer of the Madhya Pradesh Cadre and a direct recruit of 1964 batch, under Section 119 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

"1. Quashing the adverse entries in the ACR for the year 1976-77 (Annexure B) and in the ACR for the year 1979-80 (Annexure F).

2. Retrospective promotion in the Selection Grade of the I.P.S. from 1978 when the juniors of his batch were promoted.

3. Promotion to the post of Super Time Scale, to the rank of D.I.G. with effect from 7-11-81 when his juniors of the batch were promoted, with consequential benefits including arrears of pay etc."

3. O.A. 102 of 1987 was filed by the same officer against initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings and issue of charge-sheet on 22-4-1987 in respect of certain incidents that happened in 1975-76 when the said officer was posted as Commandant, 14th Battalion, SAF, Gwalior. By the order dated 16-12-1987 the Tribunal quashed the charge memo and the departmental enquiry on the ground of inordinate delay of over 12 years in the initiation of the departmental proceedings with reference to an incident that took place in 1975-76. In the order dated 25th January, 1988 the Tribunal allowed the prayer for quashing the adverse entries in the ACR for the year 1979-80 and granted the prayer for retrospective promotion to the Selection Grade from 1979 when the juniors of the respondents batch were promoted. In regard to the third relief prayed for the Tribunal directed the Government to constitute special review committee to consider the promotion of the officer to the Super Time Scale post of DIG, with effect from the date his junior was promoted, on merits in accordance with the directions given in the judgment. These two appeals have been filed against those two orders as already stated.

4. The appeal against the order dt. 16-12-1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunals orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.

5. In petition filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act the first relief related to the quashing of the adverse remarks for the years 1976-77 and 1979-80. The Tribunal has sustained the adverse remarks for 1976-77 but quashed the adverse remarks for 1979-80. Adverse remarks for the year ending 31-3-1980 made by one Shri Rahim read as follows:

"An officer of average ability who did not show any outstanding work. Appeared dissatisfied and casual about his work. Complaints of corruption and irregularities committed  by him during his posting as Command