Delay in disciplinary proceedings should be examined based on relevant factors and balanced to ensure clean and honest administration. Imposition of penalty by an authority without a right to appeal is discriminatory and illegal.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved by an order dated 3rd March 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA No. 2821/1997 as also the order dated 16th April 1998 passed in RA No. 59/98 whereby and whereunder his Original application questioning an order of his dismissal from service as also the review thereof were dismissed.

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. In relation to certain incidents which had taken place in March 1981, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 30th December 1993. According to the petitioner, in relation to the alleged lapse on part of the petitioner, he was called upon to submit his explanation on 18th November 1981. He was again called upon to submit his explanation with regard thereto on 15th April 1982. He requested for inspection of records on 23rd April 1982 but thereafter no action had been taken. The petitioner had been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) on 5th October 1984, as regular AE (C) on 25th April 1986 with retrospective effect from 17th November. 1983. He also cleared probation in the said post as also Efficiency Bar effective from 1st November 1986. Although he was entitled to a further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, having regard to the said purported charges, sealed cover procedure was adopted.

( 3 ) HE, however, having regard to the factual circumstances of the case prayed for his promotion even on an ad hoc basis but the same was not acceded to. in the afore-mentioned situation, the petitioner filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was marked as O. A. No. 970/97 and by an order dated 14th August 1997, the said application was disposed of directing:

"we have heard the counsel on either side and seen the record. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, we direct the respondents to open the sealed cover provisionally subject to the order yet to be passed in the inquiry proceedings and, the same be given effect to. It is also directed that as per the undertaking given by the respondents, the final order will be passed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in case no final order is passed, proceedings shall stand abated. The petitioner is given liberty to take further action after expiry of the said date in case no final order is passed. "

( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a Review Application No. 214/1997 as also MA 216/1997 which -has not been disposed of. An application for the extension of time for completion of the disciplinary proceeding had been filed by the respondents, which had been rejected.

( 5 ) IN the said enquiry proceedings, the charges against the petitioner had been found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and upon obtaining advice by the Union Public Service Commission, the impugned order of penalty was imposed upon the petitioner which was communicated to him on 29th November 1997.

( 6 ) THE petitioner questioned the said disciplinary proceedings, inter alia, on the following grounds:

(I)THE charge against the petitioner was a stale one.

(II)AS the petitioner received the impugned order dated 29th november 1997, the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 14th August 1987 having not been; complied with, the same stood abated.

(III)THE Council of Ministers had no jurisdiction to make any recommendation to the President for accepting the report of the Enquiry Officer.

(IV)IN any event, the President being an appellate authority, the impugned order could not have been passed by him as thereby the petitioner had lost a right of appeal.

( 7 ) BY reason of the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal rejected the said contentions holding:

"6. WE have heard the counsel. As regards the first ground taken by the applicant viz. , that the impugned order A-1 should be quashed because it is based on an old and stale charge concerning his tenure in 1981 as a Junior engineer,