Unexplained delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings can be a ground for quashing the charges.

( 1 ) BOTH these writ petitions have been directed to be heard together and as such they are being disposed of by this common order. In both the petitions filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India, petitioners pray for 5 quashing of the memorandum of charge dated july 14, 1997 by issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction.

( 2 ) LAVKUSH Prasad Gautam (petitioner in w. P. No. 38/1998) and Ganesh Prasad (petitioner in W. P. No. 324/1998) were working in the Food Corporation of India as assistant Grade III and Watchman respectively. In the year 1980, according to the respondent Corporation, they connived with the transport contractor and misappropriated one truck of rice, by manipulating the records. Respondent Corporation initiated recovery proceedings against the contractor and in terms of the agreement between them dispute was referred to an arbitrator. Till date, the arbitration proceeding has not come to an end. However, for the incident of 1980 respondent corporation decided to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioners by issuing memorandum of charges dated July 14, 1997. According to the statement of article of charges petitioner Lavkush Prasad Gautam has caused pecuniary loss of Rs. 22,103/- being the price of misappropriated 150 bags of RRLB. Allegation against petitioner Ganesh Prasad is the same, i. e. , causing financial loss of rs. 22,103/- on account of misappropriation of 150 bags of RRLB for which petitioner Lavkush prasad Gautam has also been charged. Further allegation against petitioner Lavkush Prasad gautam is of causing pecuniary loss of Rs. 4,052. 50 being the price of 25 quintals of rrlb.

( 3 ) MS. Shobha Menon appearing in support of the writ petitioners submits that the respondent Corporation has taken 17 years to initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioners, although they were aware of the alleged misconduct and on this ground alone departmental enquiry is fit to be quashed. Mr. R. S. Jha however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the respondents having explained the reasons for delay in initiating the departmental enquiry and the same being just and proper, departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioners cannot be scuttled at the initial stage on the ground of delay.

( 4 ) IT is relevant here to state that charges levelled against the petitioners pertain to an incident which has taken place on March 10, 1980. Departmental enquiry against the petitioners has been initiated by issuance of memorandum of charges dated July 14, 1997. It is not the case of the respondents that they did not know about the incident, and when it came to their notice, the departmental enquiry has been initiated against the petitioners in the year 1997.

( 5 ) IN support of her submission Ms. Menon has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of M. P. v. Bani Singh and another, AIR 1990 SC 1308 : 1990-II-LLJ-529, in which it as been held as follows:"if that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the tribunal's orders andaccordingly we dismiss this appeal. "another decision on which Ms. Menon has placed reliance is the judgment of the supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Chamanlal Goyal, 1995 (2) SCC 570 : 1995-II-LLJ-679 and my attention has been drawn to the following passage;"now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charge in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding mu