ORDER
M. Ramachandran, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. The applicant had challenged a charge sheet dated 11.3.1996, whereby the respondent, (Delhi Development Authority) had proposed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The prayer in the Writ Petition was to quash the disciplinary proceedings, which had followed. The High Court had in CM No. 1002/1998 injuncted the respondents from proceedings with the enquiry. Writ Petition thereafter has been transferred to this Tribunal, in view of the Notification dated 25.7.2007.
2. We had heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides. The pleadings were complete. The applicant reiterated the contention that charge sheet was made on misconception of facts and as a matter of fact the Executive Engineer who had been proceeded against almost on the subject had been cleared of the proceedings, when the High Court had observed that such proceedings against him had been initiated after about a decade from the date of the alleged irregularities and it deserved to be quashed. The applicant submits that while working as Divisional Accountant, he was obliged to implement the decision of his superior officer, and omission that had been alleged against him, could not have been considered as a lapse about which he had any direct responsibility. Further submission was that charge sheeting after a period of 12 years indeed inferred with his rights to defend the action. The lapses alleged were technical in nature, and proceedings amounted to harassment.
3. Of course, on behalf of respondents, an attempt was made to show that the delay was not abnormal and in view of complexity of the situation, it would have been difficult to initiate action promptly and as a matter of fact, the delay is not fatal, and no statute limits the rights as exercised by them.
4. Work orders, running to lakhs of rupees were allegedly given during the tenure of the applicant as Divisional Accountant, in 1984-85. Spot quotations were being invited, as a routine, without recording the emergent nature of the work. It is alleged that the applicant had the duty to bring to the attention of the Executive Engineer and Chief Accounts Officer of such dubious practices, and the omission at his level was actionable.
5. Perhaps corrupt and restrictive practices were being followed routinely, but there is nothing disclosed as to why the delayed action has been proposed. Discrepancy of 1986 ought to have been taken notice of the succeeding financial years at least, and the reason why it had been taken up only in 1996 is beyond comprehension.
6. From perusal of the facts, we find that the long delay has not been satisfactorily explained at all. The effort of any employer for initiating action against erring workman after considerable passage of time cannot be understood as bonafide, effective steps intented for enforcement of discipline. Rather, it may amount to persecution. Therefore, unless the delay in initiating the action was fully explained. It may not be possible to uphold the action taken after a lapse of a decade. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the issue as above and have held in State of MP v. Bani Singh that delay in charge sheeting, is fatal, and it affects civil rights of a civil servant for appropriately defending himself. Although Appala Swamy sets down the parameters in stricter terms, the benefit of the observations cannot go to the respondent in this case.
7. At the time of initiation of the proceedings the matter had been substantially delayed. Even after 10 years of pendency of the application, efforts had not been taken to get the stay orders vacated, and the proceedings stand in the same spot as they were. Totality of facts, therefore compel us to declare that the initiation or continuation of the proceedings against the applicant is not sustainable. The charge sheet issued to the applicant, therefore, deserves to be set aside. The respondents are interdicted from proceedings against the employee. The applicant will be deemed as a person against whom no disciplinary action was initiated vis-a- vis charge sheet dated 11.3.1996. There shall be no order as to costs.