IMPORTANT POINT
It is always open to quash a prosecution on the ground of unexplained unconscionable delay in investigation and prosecution on the facts of a given case.

JUDGMENT

N.D. Ojha, J. - These appeals raise an entical question of law and conveniently decided by a common order. Kailash Nath, dent in Criminal Appeal No. 422/88, was working as Executive Engineer in Public Works Department in the State of Punjab in the year 1979. On various dates in that year, he placed orders for the purchase of sign boards which were required by the Department to avoid accidents on roads and for traffic safety. The requisite sign boards were purchased in pursuance of the aforementioned orders. In the year 1980 some complaints were received in the Department against the respondent pertaining to the purchase of the sign-boards. A vigilance enquiry was instituted by the Vigilance Bureau to enquire into the complaints and ultimately a First Information Report was lodged on August 27, 1985 against the respondent under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the meantime, the respondent had retired from the post of Executive Engineer with effect from October 31, 1982.

2. The aforesaid First Information Report was challenged by the respondent in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5837-M/85 on the ground that the same having been lodged about three years after his retirement and about six years after the event of purchase of sign-boards in 1979 was in the teeth of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II and consequently was liable to be quashed. The plea raised by the respondent found favour with the High Court which relying on an earlier decision of that Court in Des Raj Singhal v. State of Punjab1 quashed the First Information report by its order dated February 12, 1986.

3. Mangal Singh Minhas, the respondent in Criminal Appeal Nos. 423-24/1988, was posted in the Industrial Supply Section of the Directorate of Industries where various types of raw materials including wax and import licences are dealt with. A First Information Report was lodged against the respondent on June 19, 1980. It appears that the respondent applied in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana for quashing of the First Information Report on account of which challan could not be filed and it was only when the challenge to the First Information Report was repelled by the High Court that a challan was filed on August 28, 1985. In the meantime, the respondent retired as Superintendent, Directorate of Industries, Punjab, on September 30, 1983. On the challan being filed the respondent again made an application in the High Court for quashing of the prosecution against him. This prayer has been allowed by the High Court by its order dated September 4, 1986 and the prosecution against the respondent has been quashed relying on the aforesaid decision in the case of Des Raj Singhal v. State of Punjab (supra). The present appeals have been tiled by the State of Punjab against the aforesaid orders passed on the applications of Ka dash Nath and Mangal Singh Minhas respectively.

4. It has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant that Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules has been misinterpreted by the High Court in holding that the said Rule placed an embargo on initiating judicial proceedings for prosecution of a government servant on the expiry of four years of the cause of action or the event referred to in the said rule and the High Court committed on error of law in taking the said view, Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other band, submitted that the view taken by the High Court was correct and in view of Rule 2.2 the First Information Report against Kailash Nath and the prosecution as against Mangal Singh Minhas were rightly quashed. In order to appreciate the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with regard to the scope and interpretation of Rule 2.2, it would be useful to extract the relevant portion of sub-rule (b) of Rule 2.2. It reads:

"(b) The Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or with