ORDER
Khan, J.
1. Petitioner wants to wriggle out of the disciplinary action initiated against him on the plea that it was hit by inordinate delay. The question that arises is whether such delay would kill the action itself.
2. It all stated with an anonymous complaint dated 12.7.1993 addressed to the Minister concerned charging petitioner, a Supdt. Engineer (Civil) in Telecom Department of some irregularities allegedly committed by him in awarding a contract way back in 1991 for work of vertical extension of telephone exchange building at Solan to one M/s. Himachal Construction Company. This complaint was referred to his Chief Engineer twice but he found no substance in it. However, the same was pursued culminating in Memorandum dated 24.2.2000 ordering initiation of departmental proceedings against petitioner charging him of commission of irregularities in awarding the contract. He challenged this in OA No.882/2000 before the CAT contending that inordinate delay committed by respondents in initiating actin against him had vitiated the action and that otherwise also anonymous complaint made to the Minister was not cognizable under CVC circular No. No.3(V)/99/2 dated 26.9.99. Tribunal over-ruled his plea and dismissed his petition by impugned order dated 6.7.2000. He has now filed this petition to assail the Tribunal order and his star contention is that respondents had taken as good as 10 years to initiate action against him which had become unsustainable on account of inordinate delay. Even otherwise also, he could not be proceeded against on the basis of anonymous complaint which was not cognizable under the aforesaid CVC circular.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Tripathi placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh & Another 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 738 and CVC Circular to support this. He also contended that the complaint against petitioner was in any case frivolous as was found by his Chief Engineer and was directed to harass him and deprive him of his promotion to the next post.
4. Learned counsel for respondents, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, on the other hand, that Chief Engineer’s clean chit to petitioner was inconsequential after respondents had found a prima facie case against him. He alleged that petitioner had wrongly shown favor to the allottee company by first treating it as the lowest tenderer and then changing the scape of work to accommodate it. the disputed that respondents had sat over the matter resulting in the delay to initiate action and referred to chronology of events to show hat they had all along pursued it and that even petitioner had resisted it throughout.
5. Mr. Bhushan argued that mere delay in initiating action was not fatal for it because it was satisfactorily explained and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. He distinguished Supreme Court judgment in Bani Sing’s case by pointing out that no explanation for the delay was offered in that case.
6. It goes without saying that inordinate delay initiating disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent employee cast a could on such proceedings and takes its own toll where such delay goes unexplained It renders the charge stale, dries up the source of proof, catch the employee off guard and makes it difficult for him to set up and organise his defense and even causes undue hardship and harassment to him, some times depriving him of his claim to promotion and other service benefits in the process. The delay in such circumstances strikes at the very root of the disciplinary proceedings. It’s not that such delay becomes fatal because of infringement of any service rules but because it renders the action unfair on the very face of it.
7. Where, however, such delay is explained and justified by the disciplinary authority, it takes the sting out of it and saves the proceedings but when it conversely goes unexplained it becomes fatal. That i sow it was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Bani Singh’s case (supra) involving 12 years delay but without any explanation.
8. But that is not story in the present case because respondents have taken pains to explain the delay involved in the matter. They a have given a chronology of event sin para 11 of their counter right from reference of the complaint against petitioner to the Chief Engineer concerned twice, followed up by explanation sought from the petitioner which he failed to render for 10 months or more and the time taken in vetting drafts and seeking approvals, etc. While all this was going on, petitioner was fighting it back in his own way making representations to the Authority till as late as on 21.6.1999 to ward off the action which was indicative of the fact that he was abreast of the situation and not ignorant of it. It is not that something was being done at his back which was likely to cause enormous prejudice to him in setting up or organising his defense. It can’t be, therefore, held in the present case that delay involved had rendered the action against the petitioner unfair in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. Mr. Tripathi’s contention that charges against petitioner were frivolous is besides the point because it is not for us to devolve into the justifiability or otherwise of he charges at this stage, more so, in the absence of any allegation that these were actuated by any malice or bias. Nor was it any good to say that the charge against petitioner was backed up by ulterior departmental motive to deprive him of his promotion as no such foundation or basis existed in this case.
10. Petitioner’s reliance on CVC Circular dated 29.6.99 is laos misplaced because it could not be retrospectively operated to cover a complaint against petitioner made way back in 1991 even if it was interpreted to bar action against anonymous complaints.
Having said so, respondents would also have to share a part of the blame for their slow and tardy action. It is surprising that they should have taken a few years to draft a memo of charges against petitioner and if left unchecked, they could as well take a decade or two to conclude the proceedings against him which was bound to harm his service rights and prejudice his promotional prospects. A time frame, therefore, was required to be prescribe for completion of those proceedings, to safeguard his interests.
This petition is accordingly disposed of by providing as under:-
“It shall be open to respondents to proceed with the departmental enquiry petitioner which shall, however, be concluded within six months from receipt of this order and in case of default, shall be liable to be quashed. However, should any exigency arise to make promotion to he higher post for which petitioner may be eligible, he shall also be considered notwithstanding pendency of such enquiry though it would be subject to its outcome.