Delay alone does not automatically vitiate departmental proceedings. The nature of charges, explanation offered, and relevant rules must be considered before quashing proceedings due to delay.

S. B. SINHA. J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 28. 2. 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in Writ petition No. 9412/1998 questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated 17. 4. 2003 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 4866/ 2001 and C. A. No. 758/2001.

( 3 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondent herein was working as a principal in various colleges, situated in the state of Andhra Pradesh. On or about 18. 7. 1992. , several charges of misconduct were framed against him. A departmental proceedings was initiated. In the said departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 8. 1. 1992. However, before any action could be taken pursuant to and in furtherance of the said report, the respondent retired on 30. 6. 1992.

( 4 ) A proceeding was initiated against the respondent upon services of a notice to show cause as to why 50% of the provisional pension fixed in his favour in terms of an interim order dated 18. 3. 1993 in O. A. No. 992/1993 passed by the Director of intermediate Education, Hyderabad, or part thereof should not be withheld. Respondent filed his reply to the said show cause notice on 20th November, 1997. During the pendency of the said departmental proceeding, an original application was filed by him before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was marked as o. A. No. 4866/2001.

( 5 ) BY reason of its order dated 17. 4. 2003. , the Andhra Pradesh Administrative tribunal directed the State to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of three months. The said order came to be questioned by the respondent herein before the High Court. In the meantime, a recovery proceeding was also initiated against him. The correctness or validity of the said recovery proceeding was also questioned by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court by its order dated 16. 2. 2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 110/2005, directed the third appellant herein to be personally present in Court and explain the reasons as to why the amount of pension payable to the respondent herein had not been paid despite the earlier directions of the High Court. The original respondent No. 3 (appellant No. 3 herein)submitted his explanation. However, by reason of the impugned judgment the High court, on the premise that the pension payable to the respondent has illegally been withheld for a long time, directed :

"accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the Government to release full pension to the petitioner from 01. 07. 1992 duly giving credit to the pension already paid to him. The pension, as directed above, shall be released to the petitioner within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. To arrears of pension shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01. 07. 1992 till date of payment. "

( 6 ) THE writ petition filed by the respondent herein questioning a part of the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed.

( 7 ) THE principal issue which falls for our determination, in view of the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, is: whether the High Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment quashing the disciplinary proceedings and issue a direction to the appellant to pay all pensionary benefits to the respondent herein, only on the ground of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings. The charges made against the respondent are as under :

"charge1. That Sri V. Appala Swamy, while working as principal, Govt. Junior college, Kurupam had falsified and tampered with certain records of the college and irregularly drawn the salaries for certain period without being regulated. "

Charge2. That Sri V. Appeala Swamy while working as Principal, Govt. Junior college, Kurupam had misappropriated the funds and committed serious financial