IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings must be examined on a case-by-case basis, and prejudice caused by the delay can lead to the quashing of the charge sheet. Inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet can result in the dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated June 28, 2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.851/2005 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondent herein by stating in paragraphs 12 to 15 as under:

"12. Taking stock of these facts, it is clear that inquiry should be initiated at the earliest. However, it depends upon the facts of each case. If delay is explained and prejudice is not caused, in that event, the inquiry need not be quashed but if there is no satisfactory explanation for delay and otherwise also, it is found that prejudice is caused in that event, the application should succeed.

13. In the present case before us, it has been explained that documents were involved for investigation had to be collected and there was bifurcation of PWD Electrical Division IV. The records went to many other divisions and some records were required to be called from various divisions. It has been further stated that the records were also required to be called from various other offices for investigation. Therefore, it took considerable time. In our considered opinion, though the respondents have explained for the delay in initiation of the departmental proceedings but they have not fully explained. The delay herein runs into 7 to 10 years from the alleged incident. The delay is not fully explained because even if some files were to be collected, it must be done at the earliest. It is not a case of fabrication of false records that the ratio deci dendi of the decision of Shri L. Srinivasan (supra) can be attracted. Herein, delay necessarily caused prejudice. They cannot blame the applicant for the delay. Prejudice would be inherent because merely after a period of one decade of the alleged misconduct, it would be difficult for anybody to contest on the facts.

14. For these reasons, we hold that the delay in the peculiar facts is not explained and keeping in view the findings, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

15. For the abovesaid reasons, we allow the present application and quash the Articles of Charge served on the applicant."

2. The facts relatable for a decision in the writ petition are that the respondent was, at the relevant time, working as Executive Engineer (Electrical) in Central Public Works Department (`CPWD', for short) under the Director General (Works), Government of India, New Delhi. On March 21, 2005, Statement of Articles of Charge framed against the respondent along with an advise of the Central Vigilance Commission dated January 06, 2005 was issued, wherein the following Articles of charge were framed against him which are reproduced as under:

"ARTICLE-I

Shri Ratan Lal, EE(E) carried out works which were of the nature of original works for which administrative approval and expenditure sanction as required from the competent authority was not available. I also allowed his AE(E)s to award similar nature work at Sub-Division level without administrative approval and expenditure sanction by way of approving "Schedule of works". Many of such works were executed without any technical sanction accorded by the competent authority. In some cases there was no provision on the items executed in the A/A & E/S referred to in the technically sanctioned estimate. The details; of such works are given in Appendix-I. He thereby violated Paras 2.1, 2.2 and 2.34 of the CPWD Manual Vol. II (1988 edition).

ARTICLE-II

Shri Ratan Lal, EE(E) invited tenders by splitting up the works by keeping, the estimated cost of the NIT within Rs.2 lakhs for call of tenders with the objective to avoid vide publicity through press and healthy competition. He also allowed his AE(E)s to invite tenders at Sub-Division level by splitting up the works by keeping the estimated cost of the NIT within Rs.60,000/- with a purpose to avoid wide publicity and healthy competition; He , thus violat