1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 498 OF 2010 Union of India & Ors. .... Petitioners. vs. Sayed Shabbir Ahmed. ..... Respondent. Mr. R.G. Bhatt with J.B. Mishra for petitioners. Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy & Saikumar Ramamurthy for Respondent. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21ST JUNE, 2010. P.C. The petitioners have impugned the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal Bombay Bench, Mumbai dated 13.10.2008 in O.A. No. 570 of 2007 filed by the respondent for quashing the enquiry proceedings which was initiated after a lapse of 8 years for misconduct on the ground of delay. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the 2 Supreme Court rendered in Govt. of T.N. vs. K.N. Ramamurthy, (1997) 7 SCC 101 wherein it was laid down that the Court can interfere in the matter of departmental enquiry in exercise of its power of judicial review only if inference of misconduct cannot be drawn from the charges and the supporting particulars, or if the charges are contrary to law and, therefore, it is submitted that if at all the respondent wants to seek discharge, he should face the enquiry which cannot be quashed and set aside. 2. We have gone though the order impugned in this petition. The facts are not disputed. The respondent was recruited by the petitioners as a Direct Recruit Jewellery Expert Appraiser, through Union Public Service Commission. He came to be appointed on 9.4.1991. On 30.4.1991, he was posted at Diamond Plaza Clearance Customs Centre, Mumbai. It was found that during 1996 he failed to examine the consignment of postal parcels properly and cleared various consignments of computer parts and water parts by indicating vague description of the items and by ignoring the misdeclaration of description and value and thereby facilitated the clearance of such goods on payment of duty of meager amount resulting in loss of revenue to the Govt., and other charges in respect of the said transaction. 3. Vide orders dated 1.2.2003 after due vigilance clearance, the respondent came to be promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Excise and was posted at Patna and it is only on 9.7.2004 he came to be served with a charge memo which is admittedly after the lapse of 8 years. The 3 petitioners are not in a position to show or place on record any material justifying the reasons for delay in initiating the departmental enquiry against the respondent and further what prevailed on the petitioners to promote the respondent as Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Excise thereby condoning the lapses on the part of the employee, if any. This, in our opinion, certainly caused prejudice to the respondent. Therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo and the departmental enquiry initiated against him. We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. (J.N. PATEL, ACTING, C.J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)