Delay in initiating departmental enquiry without any satisfactory explanation violates the principles of fairness and natural justice, and may result in quashing of the charges.

1. - Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner is serving as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department, Rajasthan, under the Chief Engineer, Command Area Development, Bikaner. It has been contended in the writ petition that the petitioner is one of the senior- most Junior Engineers working in the Irrigation Department and is placed at serial No. 30 in the last seniority list dated 28-11-1992 published by the Irrigation (Department). The next promotional post in the Department is that of Assistant Engineer from the quota of Junior Engineers (Diploma Holders) and the grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 25-9-1991 he was served with a charge-sheet containing the memo of charges and the statement of allegations levelled therein vide Annexure-2. It has been contended by the petitioner in this regard that the charge-sheet which was served on him did not contain the documents which had been relied upon by the respondents for framing the charges and as a result of which the defence of, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced. As a consequence of this the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to make effective representation to the Department. Subsequently vide order dated 25-9-1991 departmental enquiry was directed to be initiated by the respondents against the petitioner by having resort to Rule 18 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules') vide Annexure-3. It has been further contended in this regard that the joint enquiry was directed to be initiated by the respondents against the petitioner as well as one Shri R.S. Gupta who has since already retired from the service in the year 1991 itself and notwithstanding the fact that an enquiry officer was appointed no steps have been taken by the said enquiry officer to conduct and complete the enquiry against the petitioner.

2. During the course of hearing it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have in gross violation of the Rules issued the charge-sheet to the petitioner belatedly on 25th Sept., 1991 and 5th July, 1993 in respect of the allegations which pertain to the period from 1974 to 1982 and the respondents were not justified in issuing the same in absence of any satisfactory explanation on the record. It has further contended by the learned counsel that the Impugned charge-sheet is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Dr. B.M. Bohra v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1991(1) Raj LR 383 , wherein this Court while dealing with an identical question had dealt with the interpretation of a Departmental Circular dated 17th March, 1986 which provides for expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the delinquent. Specified procedure has been envisaged in the said circular in respect of departmental enquiries. The said circular envisages that if departmental enquiry is ordered, the following time schedule shall be strictly adhered to :

"(a) One week for preparing a formal charge sheet and statement of allegations and appointment of enquiry officer.

(b) Two weeks for submission of reply by delinquent officer in response to the charge-sheet.

(c) One month for departmental enquiry.

(d) Two weeks for examination of the enquiry report.

(e) Two weeks for issue of show cause notice along with a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report.

(f) Two weeks for reply to the show cause notice. (The same instructions will apply as indicated under (ii) of item 3 above).

(g) One week for examination of reply to the show cause notice and issue of final orders."
It was held by this Court that every governmental action including purely administrative acts have to be fre