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. The matter was thereafter referred to the Central Vigilance Commission and the Central Vigilance Commission on 22-5-1989 recommended initiation of proceedings for imposing major penalty. Consequently charge-sheets were served on the respondents in September 1990 and the enquiry in the charges was entrusted to the same Enquiry Officer in the proceedings against both the respondents. While the proceedings were pending before the Enquiry Officer, the respondents filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court which have been allowed by the impugned judgments and as a result the disciplinary proceedings have been quashed. The High Court has held that there was no reason why the appellant-Corporation should have waited for the report from CBI when the misconduct was detected in the year 1987 itself and that enquiry should have been started straightaway. The High Court has further observed that even after the CBI recommended action in 1988, the enquiry was not initiated till 1990 and that as on the date of impugned judgments no Enquiry Officer has been appointed and enquiry had not proceeded.

4. It is no doubt true that undue delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings may cause prejudice to the employee concerned in defending himself and, therefore, the courts insist that disciplinary proceedings should be initiated with promptitude and should be completed expeditiously. The question as to whether there is undue delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or whether they are being unnecessarily prolonged has to be considered in the light of the facts of the particular case. On an examination of the facts of this case we find that the alleged misconduct came to light in April 1986 after the CBI carried surprise checks in April 1986 and the samples that were taken were found to be substandard by the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun. Thereafter, the CBI took up the investigation in the matter suo motu and submitted its report on 30-12-1988 wherein it recommended the holding of disciplinary proceedings against the employees concerned including the respondents. Shri Vivek Gambhir, the learned counsel for the appellants, has invited our attention to paragraph 1.7 of Chapter III of Volume I of the Vigilance Manual of the Central Vigilance Commission which has been adopted by the appellant-Corporation wherein it is stated :

"Once a case has been entrusted to the CBI for investigation further inquiries should be left to them and departmental inquiry, whether fact-finding or formal under the Discipline and Appeal Rules, if any, commenced already, should be held in abeyance till such time as the investigation by the CBI has been completed. Parallel investigation of any kind should be avoided. Further action by the administrative authority should be taken o