Delayed institution of proceedings would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

1. Aggrieved by the Charge Memo dated 20.6.1995 of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 11015 of 1996. The very same petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 12246 of 1998 against the Charge Memo dated 17. 1998.

2. Thecase of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder-

The petitioner is the Executive Engineer of the respondent Corporation in the Madras circle Office. During the year 1982. the petitioner was working as Executive Engineer at Bombay in the first respondent Corporation and he was asked to take charge of the work for construction of 10,000 MTC Godown at Central Warehouse at Indore, for which the first respondent Corporation entered into valid contract agreement with the contractor. The petitioner supervised and executed the said work carried out by the contractor. On 8. 82. one Mr. R.K. Gupta. Joint Manager (Engineering) of the respondent Corporation inspected the construction work at Central Warehouse. Indore and instructed that the existing plinth-level of godowns of 1 feet 6 inches have to be increased to 2 feet and 6 inches. Based on the instructions of raising the plinth level of godown and corresponding raising of road level by the Inspecting Engineer, the petitioner had executed the work accordingly by deviating the quantity of Murram filing under the floor (foundation) and under roads as per clause No.12 of the contract agreement.

The petitioner has successfully carried out the said contract without any deviation and he has put in 25 years of unblemished record of service till date. Since the petitioner’s promotion was not considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short DPC) then convened, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1070 of 1993 and obtained an interim order to consider his case for promotion. Since the 2nd respondent has not considered his case as per the direction of this Court, a contempt appli cation came to be filed by him against the 2nd respondent. As the writ petition was dismissed, he filed Writ Appeal No.935 of 1995 which is pending. While so, the first respondent issued the impugned Memorandum dated 20.6.95 with an annexure of statement of charges levelled against the petitioner based on the allegations as if he has committed irregularities in executing the work of construction of 10,000 MTC godown at Indore during 1982. He immediately submitted his reply denying all the allegations or charges. One Mr. K. Balasubramaniam was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the alleged charges. It is stated that the enquiry cannot be pursued or enquired into after a lapse of 15 years as the charges are totally suffered from laches. No explanation whatsoever has been given in the impugned Memorandum as to why there was an inordinate delay in pursuing the matter. Since the impugned order is unfair, malafide and it was issued at the instance of the erstwhile Managing Director, having no other effective remedy, has filed Writ Petition No. 11015 of 1996.

3. In W.P.No.12246 of 1998, the petitioner states that in 1991 when he was working as Executive Engineer at Construction Cell. Bhopal. he was entrusted to control and supervise the construction work of 5000 MTC godown at Akola and the said work was awarded to one M/s Pharnex Builders, New Delhi. The petitioner was incharge of the said work in the capacity of Executive Engineer only upto 7. 91, that is to say, only 18% of the work was done under his supervision and the remaining work and the project was completed under the supervision of his successor Mr. RL. Chug, Executive Engineer as the petitioner was transferred. That being the situation, after a long lapse of 8 years, on 27. 98, the petitioner was served with a Memorandum dated 17. 98 from the respondent that an enquiry is proposed to be held against the petitioner. He submitted his written statement of defence on 8. 98 denying and refuting all the charges as mala fide, malicious, baseless and made with non-application of mind.