- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) These appeals raise common questions regarding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondents which have been quashed by the Delhi High court by the impugned judgments on the ground that there was undue delay on the part of the appellants in initiating the proceedings and thereafter in the conduct of the said proceedings.
(3.) The facts, briefly stated, are that in April 1996, the central Bureau of investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) upon information that substandard crates have been supplied to the Food Corporation of India, appellant 1 in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant- corporation") carried out surprise checks and took samples and thereafter suo motu investigation was undertaken by the CBI. As a result of the investigation it was found that the crates had only 30% Kail/deodar and, as a result, the appellant-corporation had suffered loss to the tune of rs 9,80,056 and Rs 2,89,340. The CBI submitted its report on 30/12/1988 wherein it recommended holding of disciplinary proceedings against 'the employees concerned of the appellant-corporation, including the respondents in these appeals. The matter was thereafter referred to the central Vigilance Commission and the central Vigilance Commission on 22/5/1989 recommended initiation of proceedings for imposing major penalty. Consequently charge-sheets were served on the respondents in september 1990 and the enquiry in the charges was entrusted to the same enquiry Officer in the proceedings against both the respondents. While the proceedings were pending before the Enquiry Officer, the respondents filed writ petitions before the Delhi High court which have been allowed by the impugned judgments and as a result the disciplinary proceedings have been quashed. The High court has held that there was no reason why the appellant-corporation should have waited for the report from CBI when the misconduct was detected in the year 1987 itself and that enquiry should have been started straightaway. The High court has further observed that even after the CBI recommended action in 1988, the enquiry was not initiated till 1990 and that as on the date of impugned judgments no Enquiry Officer has been appointed and enquiry had not proceeded.;