Delay alone cannot justify quashing departmental proceedings, but in exceptional circumstances, there must be a satisfactory explanation for the delay and sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the employee.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - This Writ Petition has been filed against the Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter called the Tribunal') dated 15.12.1999 (Annex.-1) allowing the O.A. No. 182 of 1999 filed by the Opposite Party-employee for quashing the disciplinary proceedings.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that an F.I.R. dated 3.1.1987 was lodged against the Opposite Party -employee, while working as a Postal Assistant, u/s 409 I.P.C. for misappropriation of funds collected in the counter by him and also that on 2.1.1987 Opposite Party-employee received cash of Rs. 5,000 from the treasurer under receipt but he did not account the same. As the Opposite Party - employee was arrested and remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, in view of the provisions of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, he was put under suspension vide Order Dated 22.1.1987. The said Opposite Party faced the criminal trial, however, stood acquitted of the charges of misappropriation by the Trial Court but was found guilty for non-accounting of the amount received from the treasury and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and to pay fine of Rs. 500 vide Judgment and Order Dated 21.7.1990. Being aggrieved the Opposite Party - employee preferred Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1990 which was allowed by the Appellate Court vide Judgment and Order Dated 16.11.1990 and he stood acquitted of all the charges. The State Government filed Govt. Appeal No. 9 of 1991 and the Department also filed a Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1991 before this Court challenging the said Judgment passed by the Appellate Court. However, both the Appeal as well as Revision were dismissed vide Judgment and Order Dated 23.4 .1997. The suspension order passed on 22.1.1987 was revoked by the Department vide Order Dated 7.7.1997 and said employee was reinstated. As the arrear and other benefits for the suspension period were not granted to the said employee because of the pendency of the criminal case, he filed O.A. No. 659 of 1999 before the Tribunal claiming the same. The Tribunal vide its interim Order Dated 29.1.1999 directed the present Petitioners to give certain benefits and make the payment of arrears. The same was not paid, thus contempt proceedings were initiated against the Petitioners and thereafter the said amount was paid. The department issued a charge-sheet dated 13.4.1999 after a period of more than 12 years and 4 months on the same charges on which he had been acquitted by the Criminal Court. Opposite Party-employee challenged the said proceedings by filing O.A. No. 182 of 1999 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal quashed the same vide impugned Judgment and Order Dated 15.12.1999 (Annex.1) mainly on the ground of delay. Hence this petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Ms. R. Bahal has submitted that delay cannot be a ground for quashing the Departmental Proceedings in case of such serious charges and there could not be any bar for initiation of the departmental proceedings after acquittal of the accused by the Criminal Court on the same charges. Therefore, the Judgment and order impugned is liable to be set aside.

4. On the contrary Shri Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-employee has submitted that the Opposite Party-employee was put under suspension on 22.1.1987. In spite of his acquittal by the first Appellate Court vide Judgment and Order Dated 16.11.1990 the suspension was not revoked and it continued till 7.7.1997 . It was only when the Tribunal issued contempt notice for non-compliance of its order, the departmental proceedings were initiated on 13.4.1999 i.e. after 12 years 4 months and 12 days on the same charges on which he stood acquitted long back, which is not justified. At such a belated stage it was not possible for the employee to defend himself properly. Further, there ha