G. S. SINGHVI, J.

1. Should the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, stultify the proceedings of disciplinary enquiry at the threshold by quashing the charge-sheet? This is the question which arises for determination by the Court in the present petition which has been filed for quashing of the memoranda dated October 14, 1999/ november 11, 1999 (collectively marked as annexure P-7) issued by the Senior Regional manager, Food Corporation of India (respondent No.2) for holding enquiry against the petitioners under Regulation 60 of the Food corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for short, the Regulations ).

2. Shri Sanjiv Bansal took us through the averments made in the petition and submitted that delay of 7 years in the initiation of enquiry should be treated as sufficient for quashing the impugned memoranda. Learned counsel pointed out that respondent No.2 had issued notices like Annexure P.1 to all the petitioners to submit their explanation in respect of the allegation of abnormal losses suffered by the food Corporation of India (for short, the corporation) but after the submission of replies no action was taken