- (1.) This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 13008, 13009 and 13010 of 1993, as common question of law and fact is involved in all the three writ petitions. Facts are being taken from C.W.P. No. 13008 of 1993.
(2.) Present Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order (Charge-sheet) Annexure P-1 dated 3.9.1993 on the ground that charge-sheet has been issued after a lapse of nine and half years of the original default, if any, committed. The charges relate to the year 1984 whereas the charge-sheet has been issued in September, 1993. From the reading of various judgments including State of M.P. v. Bani Singh,1990 2 RSJ 38and two Full Bench judgments of this Court in Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 2 SCT 128 and Dr. Ishar Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1994 1 SCT 563, it is clear that delay in initiating the enquiry itself is no ground to quash the proceedings unless a prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner with regard to the proposed defence which may be taken by him. In Ajit Singh etc. v. Food Corporation of India etc., 1995 3 SCT 244 CWP No. 13907 of 1993 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 31.3.1994 after analysing the case law held as under "From the above, it can concluded that the preponderance of judicial opinion seems to be that mere delay in the issuance of charge-sheet or concluding the disciplinary proceedings would not by itself be sufficient ground to quash the disciplinary proceedings. However, if the delinquent official can establish that delay has caused him prejudice, the disciplinary proceedings would be liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not laid any foundation in the pleadings or brought any material at the time of arguments to show that the petitioners are likely to be prejudiced or deprived of a fair trial because of delay. Prejudice has to be established before challenging the inquiry on the ground of delay and laches. No such prejudice has been shown." The only point to be seen, therefore, is as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner with regard to the defence which the petitioner may have taken in defence of the allegations made. In sub-paras (vi) and (vii) of para 7 of the petition, it has been alleged that the charges levelled against the petitioner were well within the knowledge of the respondent right from the beginning and if the charge-sheet at the relevant time had been issued then the petitioner would have been in a position to rebut the allegations levelled against him. Loading of trains is a routine matter. Almost every day one special was loaded by the petitioner and despatched to various parts of the country and it would indeed be impossible for him to remember having despatched such a train, that if the opportunity had been given to the petitioner at the relevant time then the petitioner could avail of the opportunity of joint inspection as provided under headquarter instructions of the stocks under destination regarding shortage and the same cannot be provided at this stage because the wheat stocks which were sent from one station to another in the country stand consumed. In the reply filed regarding these two points, it has simply been stated that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner merely on account of serving the charge-sheet upon the petitioner at a belated stage and no opportunity of joint inspection was required to be given in case of short loading. The existence of the instructions providing for such joint inspection in case of shortage has not been denied.
(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties at some length and we are satisfied that there is no satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay in issuing the charge-sheet. No explanation has been rendered by the respondent- Food Corporation of India to explain the delay in issuing the charge-sheet except saying that the delay was caused in finalising the matter because of inter-departmental correspondence. Petitioner has been deprived of his right to claim the joint inspection as provided under the headquarters instructions of stocks in case any shortage was reported. The stock pilferage of the stocks could either be from the station of despatch, during transit or at the station of destination. Petitioner would be deprived of his right/chance to produce the evidence after a lapse of ten years to show that pilferage could have taken place either during transit or at the station of destination. Prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if the proceedings are allowed to be initiated after a lapse of almost ten years under the circumstances of this case.;