ORDER
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 28.2.1992 issued by the respondents to the petitioner. The charges relate to the period during the years 1982-83 while the petitioner was serving as a Junior Engineer, Construction Division No. 1, DDA, Jhandewalan. It is alleged in the said charge-sheet that during execution of the work of development of land in New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur and surrounding arrears, the petitioner was the Junior Engineer-in-Charge and was assigned the duty of supervising the execution of the said work. It is alleged that the work done was examined by CTE’s Organisation in 1988 and found not only deficiencies in the work but also found that the work was carried out contrary to the sanctioned plan. It is alleged in the writ petition that the charges in respect of which the aforesaid chargesheet was issued, relate to the period during 1982-83 and, therefore, there is inordinate delay in serving the memo of charges, for which there is no acceptable explanation, which itself is a ground of quashing of the charges.
2. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the pipeline in question was not laid as per sanctioned municipal plan, that the alignment of the pipeline was changed and that the boundary wall was constructed over the pipeline which caused difficulty in its maintenance, and that on inspection lesser quantity of lead was found to have been filled up in the joints of the pipeline leading to leakage therein. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the charges drawn up against the petitioner cannot be said to be stale and that there was no undue or inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet.
3. It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the chargesheet is liable to be quashed, which was issued after more than 9 years from the dat of agreement and execution of the aforesaid work and that no explanation has been given by the respondents as to why there was such inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo. It is also stated that the petitioner carried out the orders of the superior and also carried out measurements and, therefore, the charges are false.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that neither there is any delay in issuing the chargesheet to the petitioner nor any prejudice was caused to the petitioner in drawing up the charges in the year 1992. It was submitted that the CTE submitted its report on 17.5.88 and thereafter the chargesheet was issued upon verification of the records, which took some time. It is also stated that on the date when the writ petition was filed the departmental proceeding was proceeding against the petitioner wherein he was taking active part and, therefore, no prejudice was caused to him.
5. The question that, therefore, arises for my consideration is whether there was any delay in serving the charge memo to the petitioner for which there is no acceptable explanation and, if so, whether the chargesheet is required to be quashed. During the years 1982-83, the petitioner was assigned the work of supervising execution of the work in New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur. It is alleged in the charge sheet that in execution of the aforesaid work, there is deviation from the sanctioned plan as the pipeline in question was not laid as per the sanctioned municipal plan and the alignment of the pipeline was changed. It is also alleged that there is also deficiency in the work done as on inspection lesser quantity of lead was found to have been filled up on the joints of the pipeline leading to leakage therein. The aforesaid short-comings, variations and deficiencies were noted when CTE’s Organisation carried out joint inspection and recorded Site Observation on 17.5.88. Since inspection of the work was carried out only in 1988, the delay from the period 1982-83 to 1988 stand explained and the petitioner can have no grievance for the aforesaid period.
6. The charge memo came to be issued to the petitioner in the month of August, 1992. After the aforesaid report was submitted by the CTE, the same was required to be studied, verified and the case was to be processed. Finally, the charge memo was issued on 28.2.92. The period taken in issuing the charge memo, therefore, cannot said to be inordinate delay, for in between the period number of actions were required of be taken by the respondents. The chargesheet was issued in 1992 and this writ petition was filed in this court only in the year 1997. Therefore, for five years the departmental proceedings continued and the petitioner did not face any difficulty in conducting the departmental proceeding.
7. While issuing notice in this writ petition, this court also passed an order that the departmental proceeding could continue and the same could be concluded by the respondents but the final order should not be passed. In the petition there is no whisper that the petitioner is adversely affected because of issuance of the chargesheet in the year 1992. Neither any prejudice is alleged nor any averment is made that on account of lapse of time it has become difficult for the petitioner to adduce evidence or to prove his innocence.
8. The delay of four and a half years from the date of receipt of the report from the inspecting authority till the date of issuance of chargesheet without there being any specific allegation that the petitioner has suffered any prejudice or that because of the aforesaid delay and lapse of time, it has become difficult for the petitioner to adduce evidence or to prove his innocence, cannot be said to be delay warranting quashing of the charges in this case. In the present case, it cannot be said that the delay is too long and is unexplained, particularly when the aforesaid delay is not caused or alleged to have cause prejudice to the petitioner in defending himself.
In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme court in STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS VS. CHAMAN LAL GOYAL . In the said decision, the Supreme Court held that if the delay is too long and is unexplained the court may well interfere and quash the charges but how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case and that moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. It was further held that wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances and the court is required to indulge in a process of balancing. In the said case, after weighing the factors and after indulging in the process of balancing the Supreme Court held that although there was delay of five and a half years in serving the charges, the said delay does not justify quashing of the charges against the petitioner.
9. I have arrived at the aforesaid conclusion after weighing various factors appearing for and against the aforesaid plea of delay and on the basis of totality of circumstances. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition and the petition stands dismissed.