Gita Mittal, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment dated 8th January, 2013 in R.A.No.27/2012 in O.A.No.1844/2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi holding that there was inordinate and unexplained delay in commencement of the disciplinary proceedings against the respondents before the Tribunal and directing that the same would stand quashed.

2. The respondent before us, joined service with the Customs Department in the year 1976. At the time of filing of his Original Application before the Tribunal, he had put in 35 years of meritorious service. On the 4th of October, 1998, the respondent was posted as Inspector at the Export Shed, Inland Container Deport (ICD), Tughlakabad, New Delhi where he was inter alia assigned the duty of inspection/examination of consignment presented for export from the said port. It appears that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an inquiry in availment of duty drawback on export of chief quality junk UPFC pipes between 1998 and 1999 by M/s. Aravali (India) Limited, Hissar which culminated in issuance of a notice to show cause dated 21st December, 2000 to the exporter. In this notice, reliance was placed on the shipping bills of said firm with regard to the subject transaction. This show cause notice was not addressed to the respondent. It is noteworthy that nothing adverse against the respondent was mentioned therein.

3. The exporter appears to have submitted a reply. After consideration of the matter, upon adjudication by the Commissioner of Customs, an order dated 2nd November, 2001 was passed. There was still nothing incriminating against the respondent. Therefore, from the Custom’s point of view, investigation in the case stood completed.

4. On the 6th of August, 2003, the DRI addressed a letter to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, (Delhi Zone) with regard to an alleged export fraud of M/s. Aravali (India) Limited, Hissar. This communication was in response to the Chief Commissioner’s letter dated 18th June, 2003 and referred to findings of the DRI. Specific reference was made to the shipping bills presented by the company on which the goods had been exported. In para 8 of this letter dated 6th August, 2003, the DRI had stated that scrutiny of the shipping bills revealed that 20 officers of the Custom had examined the consignment covered by the bills. In para 12, the DRI had made following recommendations:-

“12. Considering that a large number of Customs and Central Excise Officers had attended to the export consignment of M/s Aravali India Ltd. over a period of time, it may be a little farfetched to infer that each of the officers had colluded and/or connived with the exporter in the latters fraudulent activities. On the other hand, a charge of gross negligence or dereliction of duty against the concerned officials would appear more appropriate and sustainable as well. Thus, it is recommended that departmental action for dereliction of duty may be initiated against the above mentioned 23 officers. This office is shortly issuing a show cause notice invoking penal provisions against only the exporter/firm and its Managing Director.”

Despite the DRI pointing out the above, no action was initiated for dereliction of duty against the 23 custom officers at the ICD.

5. In the meantime, on the 27th of October, 2004, the respondent was summoned by the his Vigilance Department and interrogated about the above exports. The respondent has submitted that he had tendered his explanation to the best of his knowledge, memory, and referred to the incident as well as contemporaneous documents relating to the said export. According to the respondent, the vigilance officials were satisfied with his explanation. Therefore, no action was taken against him, either under the Customs’ Act or under the CCS (Conduct) Rules.

6. The petitioner submits that a preliminary enquiry report da