1. The petitioner is a retired government employee. He was a member of the Bihar State Administrative Service and towards the end of service tenure he was posted, on deputation, as Additional Secretary in the Bihar State Electricity Board. He superannuated from service on 28.2.2003. A few days before his superannuation a memo, dated 22.2.2003 (Annexure-2) was issued under the signature of the Dy. Secretary in the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar informing the petitiner that a decision was taken to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against him under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and asking him to submit his explanation against the charges within ten days from the receipt of the memo. The memo enclosed the Articles of Charges in Form-K and the document on which the charges were based. The aforesaid memo along with the Articles of Charges was received by the petitioner on 25.3.2003.

2. The charges against the petitioner appertain to the year 1992 when he was posted as Subdivisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar. In October, 1992 a serious communal riot had taken place at Sitamarhi causing loss of human lives and large scale destruction of properties. The State Government had got an enquiry made by Shri S.R. Adige, IAS who was at that time posted as the Member Board of Revenue inter alia, for fixing the responsibility of the members of the District Administration. Shri Adige sumitted his report in which the petitioner, apart from some other officers of the District Administration, was severely indicted. The Articles of Charges against the petitioner seem to be primarily based on the report sumitted by Shri Adige. The charges against the petitioner (six in number) appear to be quite grave. According to the charges, the petitioner allowed changes in the route prescribed from before for the immersion procession of the Goddess idols (It seems that the changes effected in the route of the procession became the proximate cause of the riots). It is alleged against the petitioner that he came under the influence of communal groups and did not take effective steps in time for controlling the riots. The charge memo served upon the petitioner enclosed in addition to the Articles of Charges copious extracts from the report of Shri Adige.

3. On the basis of the enquiry repot the petitioner was given a preliminary notice dated 11.3.1993 seeking his explanation. The petitioner gave his reply on 8.4.1993 and at that stage the matter apparently lay dormant till the charge meml was served upon him on 25.3.2003.

4. On his retirement four days later the proceeding got converted into one under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule.

5. This writ petition has been filed challenging the initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner, a few days before his retirement and in regard to an occurrence that took place over ten years ago.

6. Mr. K.N. Chaubey strongly criticised the initiation of the proceeding calling it malafide and a colourable exercise of power. He assailed the initiation of the proceeding on three grounds. Mr. Chaubey submitted that the proceeding was in regard to an occurrence that took place over ten years ago and, according to him, the inordinate delay in the initiation of the proceeding, apart from anything else, made it liable to be quashed. In support of the submission he relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and others, A.I.R. 1990 SC 1308. In that case the Administrative Tribunal had quashed the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the concerned employee on the ground that the charges were 12 years old and in appeal against the order of the Administrative Tribunal the Supreme Court declined to interfere, observing as follows :

"It is not the case of the department that they are not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April,