The delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings should be reasonable and explained, and the seriousness of charges and proposed punishment should be considered in relation to the lapse of time.

D. Murugesan, J.

1. In all these Writ Appeals, the Appellants question the common order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petitions filed by them.

2. The factual matrix of the grievance espoused in these Writ Appeals are as follows: The Appellants herein are working as Assistants in Various Panchayats, namely Respondent No.3 in the respective Writ Appeals, in the Madurai West Panchayat Union, Madurai. On the allegation that during the Years 1994-95 and 1995-96, they have committed irregularities in distribution of uniforms to the employees of the respective Panchayats, Charge Memos were issued to them during the Year 2005. The said Charge Memos were questioned by the respective Appellants before the Writ Court, primary on the following grounds:

.(a) The alleged occurrence in question had taken place during the Years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996 and the Charge Memos were issued only after 10 Years and there was no explanation for such an inordinate delay, thereby serious prejudice had been caused to each of the Appellants.

.(b) The Charge Memos themselves indicate the proposed punishment of dismissal and as such the issue was prejudged warranting only orders of dismissal.

.(c) The charge are not that much serious, warranting Disciplinary proceedings, after 10 Years.

The Writ Petitions came to be dismissed on the ground that the Charge Memos are only issued for calling upon the Appellants to show cause and there was no valid ground for interference.

3. We have heard Mr.K. Srinivasan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Learned Special Government Pleader for Respondent 1 and 2 and Mr.M. Srinivasan for Respondent No.3 in the respective Writ Appeals.

4. As far as the first contention relating to the delay in initiating the Disciplinary proceedings is concerned, we may point out that it is not the general rule that the delay in initiating of Disciplinary proceedings by itself would be a ground for quashing a Charge-Memo. The employee would always be entitled to explain such a delay to the satisfaction of the Court. Further, in the event the charges are very serious and the delay has also been explained, then the Court would not interference and quash the Charge Memo solely on the ground of delay in initiating the Disciplinary proceedings.

5. However, on the facts of this case, though the occurrence was noticed during the Year 1994-95 and the respective 3rd Respondent-Panchayats became aware of the incident immediately, as could be seen from the fact that the prime officer, who had indulged in the purchase of ordinary clothes at the guise of purchasing uniforms, was punished in the Year 1996, had kept quiet to initiate action against the Appellants, who are staff of the Panchayats and through whom such clothes were distributed. Though the learned Counsel appearing of the 3rd Respondent-Panchayats has made fervent attempt that the delay was only in the process of file to get approval for initiating Disciplinary proceedings, in the absence of any acceptable materials indicating a reasonable explanation, atleast for such delay, mere submission that the delay had occasioned in the movement of files for approval cannot be accepted. In the absence of any such explanation, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the respective 3rd Respondent-Panchayats that the Charge Memos cannot be quashed. In our considered view, the impugned Charge Memos are liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay in the initiating of Disciplinary proceedings.

6. We may refer to some of the judgments of the Apex Court on the question of delay as to whether mere delay would be a ground to interfere and to quash the Charge Memo.

(i) In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and Another, 1990 Supp. SCC 2381, wherein it has been observed as follows:

“The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiries is said to have taken place between the Years 1975-77. It is not the case of