ORDER Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 27.11.1997 issued to the petitioner. It is stated that the charges in respect of which the aforesaid charge sheet was issued on 27.11.1997 relate to the period between 1983 & 1987 and therefore, the said charge sheet cannot be made operative and is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay.
2. The petitioner was functioning as Executive Engineer during the period 1983-86. During the aforesaid period construction of certain MIG houses at Shalimar Bagh, Block 'C', Pocket 'A' was carried out by the respondent and the same was supervised by the petitioner. The aforesaid work as inspected by the Chief Engineer on 13.2.1987 and certain observations were made by him upon inspection which were issued on 19.2.1987. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Superintending Engineer on 21.11.1997 on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and while functioning as such and just three days before his retirement a charge memo was issued to the petitioner drawing up certain charges against the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid work regarding construction of 288 MIG houses at Shalimar Bagh, Block 'C', Pocket 'A'. It is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the said charge sheet is liable to be quashed which was issued after more than 10 years of the inspection of the aforesaid work by the Chief Engineer and no explanation has been given by the respondent as to why there was such inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and that also just three days before the retirement of the petitioner.
3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent and it is stated therein 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. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit a chronological sequence of events culminating into the issue of charge sheet are placed on record. The construction, as is stated above, took place between the period from 1983 to 1986 and the inspection of the said work was done by the Chief Engineer on 13/16.2.1987 and in inspection note was issued by him on 19.2.1987. For long 8 years nothing was done in respect of the same and only on 7.2.1995 the case was referred by the Chief Engineer to the Vigilance Branch. Comments were sought from the Chief Engineer on 25.2.1995 to which reply was received from the Chief Engineer only on 5.7.1996. Relevant records were summoned from the Executive Engineer on 20.8.1996 and the said records were received on 26.6.1997 and the preliminary investigation report was submitted by the Vigilance Department only on 17.10.1997. The final charge sheet was issued on 27.11.1997. The petitioner retired from the service of the DDA on 30.11.1997. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the matter was referred for the first time by the Chief Engineer (Quality Control), DDA to the Vigilance Branch of DDA only in February, 1995 and there was no undue delay on the part of the DDA.
4. The alleged misconduct relates to a period between 1983 and 1986 when the petitioner was serving as an Executive Engineer. The report with regard to the inspection was submitted by the Chief Engineer as far back as 19.2.1987. Even thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer on 21.11.1997 after recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The case was referred to the Vigilance Branch only in the month of February, 1995 after a delay of about 8 years. No plausible explanation has been given for the aforesaid inordinate delay. There is not even a whisper of explanation with regard to the cause of delay between 1987 and 1995 and even when the matter was referred by the Chief Engineer to the Vigilance Branch on 7.2.1995 the records were not made available immediately by the concerned branch. It is established from the records that although the alleged lapses were known to the respondent upon inspection in February, 1987, no steps were taken to get the matter examined by the Vigilance Department till the month of February, 1995. The charge sheet was issued only on 27.11.1997 and the petitioner retired from service on 30.11.1997. The delay on the part of Delhi Development Authority in drawing up the departmental proceedings remain unexplained. Since there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet and following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh, reported in AIR 1990 SC 11308, I have no other option but to quash the impugned charge sheet in the present case, as in my view no useful purpose will be served for proceeding against the petitioner after such a long delay and particularly when the petitioner has retired from service.
5. In the result the charge sheet and the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner stand quashed. The writ petition stands allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs.