JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J. :

1. The instant writ petition has arisen out of an order passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal on 16.09.2018 in connection with O.A. 266 of 2014 wherein the respondent had prayed for quashing the disciplinary proceeding as well as charge sheet issued against him.

2. By the impugned order the learned Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the respondent by quashing the memorandum of charges on the ground that there has been inordinate delay in issuing the memorandum of charges for which no explanation was offered.

3. Shorn of details, the respondent herein was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 03.11.1995 at PWD Department and on the selfsame date he was sent to the Housing Department, Government of West Bengal on deputation and was posted as Assistant Director, Akra Subdivision under Akra Division of brick production holding additional charge of Akra Subdivision II. Thereafter, this respondent was transferred from his the then post to the post of Assistant Engineer, Plessey Subdivision by an order dated 24.11.1999. He got higher scale of pay under the West Bengal services ROPA Rules 1998 on 28.05.2007 and subsequently was promoted to the post of executive engineer on 02.05.2008.

4. A memorandum of charge sheet was issued against the present respondent on 15.03.2012 by the disciplinary authority and authority also pleased to hold an enquiry under Rule 10 of WBS (CC & A) Rules, 1971. The article of charge indicates to gross irregularities allegedly committed by the respondent in the supervision of tender related work for manufacture and supply of brick while he was posted on deputation at Akra Subdivision. It also indicates that the respondent allegedly committed gross irregularities in the supervision of tender related work including checking of measurements as recorded in measurement books and after signing RA bills and final bills to send to divisional office for payment, checking of outstanding dues to be recovered as recorded by SAE on the bills and in the MB for recovery purpose.

5. A preliminary investigation was conducted by the Anticorruption Bureau of the State Vigilance Commission and after perusal of the report of the investigation and related documents including statement of the respondent it was opined that there were materials for proceeding against him and accordingly charge sheet was framed and it was forwarded to the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the matter travelled to the State Administrative Tribunal challenging the disciplinary proceeding by the respondent initiated in the year 2012. The respondent has taken the plea that the disciplinary authority is estopped from issuing charge sheet in respect of alleged allegation pertaining to the period prior to his promotion as Executive Engineer on 02.05.2008.

6. The learned Tribunal passed the impugned order by finding that the disciplinary proceeding and charge sheet under challenge are not sustainable and quashed and set aside the same.

7. Mr. Susanta Pal, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that since irregularity committed by the respondent was detected in the year 2010 after holding secret enquiry of the vigilance commission by taking opinion of the Housing Department, proceeding was initiated in the year 2012. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the tribunal had to consider the gravity of the misconduct which is one of the relevant factors and which is to be taken into consideration while quashing the charge sheet.

8. Learned counsel drew attention of this court about the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh & Anr., reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308 and submitted that in that judgment the department was well aware of involvement of the officer in the earliest but the tribunal failed to distinguish the same from the instant case wherein it was the specific contention of the appellants herein that the