The judgment establishes that there cannot be a predetermined principle for quashing departmental proceedings due to delay and emphasizes the need to consider all relevant factors and explanations for the delay in each case.

1. In this writ application petitioner, an Assistant Engineer in the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar, has challenged the order of his suspension dated 3.4.2006, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, as well as resolution dated 1.7.2006, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, initiating departmental proceeding against him and issuing show cause alongwith a copy of the chargesheet asking him to submit his show cause to the enquiry officer appointed by the resolution.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer vide Government notification dated 16.6.1987 in the Road Construction Department. Later on, he was placed under deputation in the Rural Engineering Organization of the Rural Development Department. While on deputation in the Rural Engineering Organization between the periods June, 1990 to September, 1993 he Was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Pupri Sub-Division at Sitamarhi. While petitioner was functioning as Assistant Engineer in Pupri Sub-Division, a complaint was filed by then M.L.A. of Runni Saidpur Assembly Constituency on 15.12.1992 in the Technical Examination Cell of the Cabinet Vigilance Department, alleging several irregularities and omissions and commissions in the development and construction works of various departments in the Sitamarhi district by the concerned employees of different departments. The Technical Examination Cell of the Cabinet Vigilance Department examined the complaint and made on the spot inspection of various schemes implemented in the district during the period 24.4.1995 to 2.5.1995 and submitted its report in which gross irregularities were reported in implementation of the schemes and development works by the employees and officers of the different departments in Sitamarhi district. The said report of the Technical Examination Cell of the Cabinet Vigilance Department was sent to the Rural Development Department under the signature of Secretary, Cabinet Vigilance Department vide letter dated 9.3.1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ application) with a request to call for an explanation from the concerned officers and send the same to the Cabinet Vigilance Department alongwith its opinion. However, no explanation was called for from the petitioner by the Rural Development Department as requested in the letter of the Secretary, Cabinet Vigilance Department. As such, enclosing the enquiry report again as well as copy of letter dated 9.3.1996, by letter dated 30.1.2001, as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application, the Cabinet Vigilance Department requested the Rural Development Department to take appropriate action in the matter and inform the Cabinet Vigilance Department.

3. It has been asserted by the petitioner that in similar circumstances, some other Departments had called for explanation from their concerned employees/ officers and on receipt of the explanation had recommended the Cabinet Vigilance Department for exonerating the said employees of the concerned Departments. Copies of such recommendations by other Departments have been annexed by the petitioner as Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ application. It has been asserted by the petitioner that unlike other Departments, no explanation was called for by his Department from him in the matter as requested by the Cabinet Vigilance Department in its letter dated 9.3.1996. it appears that on receipt of the letter of the Cabinet Vigilance Department dated 30.1.2001, the Rural Development Department took up the matter and the Additional Secretary wrote a letter dated 26.4.2001 to the District Magistrate, as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application, to institute criminal cases against named officers of the Department against whom prima facie allegations of irregularity and ommissions and commissions had been found to be established in the enquiry report of Technical Examination Cell of the Cabinet Vigilance Department. Pursuant to the sai