1. This case is a concrete instance of procedural delay causing irretrievable damage to both the parties in their relationship as Employer and Employee. The employee has already suffered punishment of his long suspension from service for 10 years without getting opportunity to prove his innocence either in the criminal trial which is pending or in the departmental enquiry which could not commence till he reached the age of superannuation. The employer has also to suffer by paying suspension allowance to the employee for long 10 years without taking any work from him because he was facing a serious criminal charge in the Court of law. The facts in detail would Justify the above comment.

2. The petitioner was working since 1976 as Assistant Grade-I in the Food Corporation of India (respondent herein and herein after described as the employer'). While the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') was posted at Naila District, Bilaspur, a criminal case was registered against him for offences among a others under section 409 IPC for the alleged charge of illegally and dishonestly transporting certain quantities of food grains and other items from godowns of the Corporation. The crime was registered against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Janjgir in the year 1983. He was placed under suspension on 19.9.83. He continued to remain under suspension for 10 years, during which neither the trial was completed nor he was proceeded against departmentally by way of a disciplinary action.

3. It appears that as the criminal trial had taken a very long period and he was to reach the age of superannuation, the order of suspension was revoked on 10.9.93. Thereafter also the employer did not issue any charge sheet to take any disciplinary action against the employee. The charge sheet has now been issued on 17.4.96 (Annex. P.2) which is sought to be quashed in this petition which was filed on 10.5.96. This Court on 17.5.96 passed an interim order staying passing of a final order in the pending departmental enquiry against the employee. As is stated in the return of the employer, the departmental enquiry has now been completed and only the final order remains to be passed and communicated to the petitioner. The passing of the final order and its communication have been stayed because of the interim order passed by this Court.

4. During pendency of this petition the employee now stands retired on 31.5.96.

5. Shri P.R. Bhave learned counsel appearing for the employee relies on State of M.P. v. Bani Singh and another (AIR 1990 SC 1308), in support of his contention that the departmental enquiry is liable to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the disciplinary authority.

6. Shri S.C. Jain learned counsel appearing for the employer referred to the observation of the S.C. In Kusheswar Dubey v. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (AIR 1988 SC 2118). It is submitted that simultaneously with criminal trial the departmental enquiry could not be commenced and it was expected of the employer to have reasonably waited for the conclusion of the criminal trial. It is further submitted that as the criminal trial did not conclude within the reasonable time and the employee was reaching the age of superannuation, the employer had to start and complete the departmental enquiry well before his retirement. It is argued that in the present case it cannot be held that there has been any un-explained delay on the part of the employer. The delay was occasioned due to long pendency of a criminal trial. Reliance is placed on another decision of the Supreme Court (Dinesh Kumar Agarwal v. Bank of India and others) (1996 MPJR Vol. I SC 89). The submission now made on behalf of the employer is that commencing of departmental enquiry on same charges on which criminal trial is long pending cannot be held as barred.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the deci