Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. These writ petitions arise out of a common set of circumstances and are therefore being taken up for disposal together. W.P. (C) 2656/2003 has been filed on behalf of Prof. P.N. Bhat challenging the order dated 17.12.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 3223/2002. W.P. (C) 5695/2003 has been filed on behalf of Union of India (UOI) against the very same order passed by the Tribunal on 17.12.2002.

2. Insofar as Prof. P.N. Bhat is concerned, his case is that the charge memos dated 25.09.1997 and 31.10.1997 ought to be quashed as also further proceedings based thereon on the sole ground of inordinate unexplained delay. This plea was taken on behalf of Prof. P.N. Bhat before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, did not agree and directed the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) to complete the departmental proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 17.12.2002.

3. The plea taken by the UOI/ICAR in its Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 5695/2003 is that such a direction ought not to have been given in the absence of the Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). It was contended that since the direction for completing the inquiry within six months was mandatory in nature, the same could not have been issued in the absence of CVC as a party before the Tribunal.

4. The petitioner was working as Director-cum-Vice Chancellor of IVRI which is an Institute/Deemed University under the ICAR. The charges levelled in the two charge memos referred to above relate to the period when the said Prof. P.N. Bhat was working as Director-cum-Vice Chancellor of IVRI during 1987 to 1990. It is relevant to note that a show cause notice was issued to Prof. P.N. Bhat on 27.06.1990 containing as many as 97 allegations. Thereafter, a transfer order was passed on 25.01.1990 followed by a suspension order dated 17.05.1990. Both these orders were challenged by Prof. P.N. Bhat by way of an Original Application being O.A. No. 105/1990. The Tribunal by an order dated 31.10.90 quashed the transfer order as also the suspension order. However, the Tribunal gave liberty to the respondents namely ICAR to continue with the investigation/Inquiry.

5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 31.10.1997 passed by the Tribunal, the ICAR filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court being SLP Civil No. 1899/1991. By an order dated 07.08.1991 the said SLP petition was disposed of with the following directions:-

“It has been brought to our notice that the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent are contemplated on a number of charges, but till today no charge sheet has been issued and the formal inquiry has not commenced. If the petitioner intends to take disciplinary action against the respondent, they should complete the enquiry at an early date preferably within three months. With these observations, the special leave petition is disposed of.” (underlining added)

From the said order passed by the Supreme Court, it is apparent that the Supreme Court desired that the inquiry be concluded expeditiously and preferably within three months. That, however, did not happen. More than two years later a charge memo containing 13 Articles of Charge was served upon Prof. P.N. Bhat on 22.12.1993. That charge memo has ultimately been quashed by this court by virtue of this court’s order dated 20.09.2012 in WP(C) 8245/2008. That charge memo is not the subject matter of the present writ petition. Four years thereafter, that is, on 25.09.1997 another charge memo containing three Articles of charge was served upon Prof. P.N. Bhat. This was followed by yet another charge memo dated 31.10.1997 containing a further Article of charge. At this stage itself we may point out that insofar as the latter charge memo of 31.10.1997 is concerned, no Inquiry Officer has been appointed till