ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. These appeals raise common questions regarding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondents which have been quashed by the Delhi High Court by the impugned judgments on the ground that there was undue delay on the part of the appellants in initiating the proceedings and thereafter in the conduct of the said proceedings.

3. The facts, briefly stated, are that in April 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) upon information that substandard crates have been supplied to the Food Corporation of India, Appellant 1 in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant-Corporation") carried out surprise checks and took samples and thereafter suo motu investigation was undertaken by the CBI. As a result of the investigation it was found that the crates had only 30% Kail/Deodar and, as a result, the appellant-Corporation had suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 9,80,056 and Rs. 2,89,340. The CBI submitted its report on 30-12-1988 wherein it recommended holding of disciplinary proceedings against the employees concerned of the appellant-Corporation, including the respondents in these appeals. Th