THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.968 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, the 1st respondent herein. In the year 1979, he was working as Branch Manager at Miryalaguda. In 1985, he headed Gattuppal Branch and in 1988, the Pochampalli Branch. The respondents issued a charge sheet, dated 10.05.1991, alleging certain irregularities on the part of the petitioner, when he worked as Manager of the three branches, referred to above. Similar charge sheet, dated 09.02.1994, was issued alleging irregularities, when the petitioner functioned as Branch Manager of Venkatapuram Branch, in the year 1991-92. The petitioner submitted his explanation to both the charge sheets, on 23.05.1991 and 22.02.1994, respectively. The respondents took about four years to appoint an Enquiry Officer, which was made, on 18.06.1998. After conducting the enquiry, he submitted a report, on 31.03.2001. One and half years thereafter, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, on 09.08.2002. This was followed by the order, dated 26.09.2002, through which the respondents imposed the punishment of reduction of pay scale of the petitioner by three stages with cumulative effect. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was summarily rejected, on 31.12.2003. Hence, this Writ Petition. The petitioner contends that the charges framed against him are frivolous and long after the alleged occurrence. He submits that except pointing out certain minor irregularities, it was not even alleged by the respondents that any financial loss has occurred to the bank. He further submits that the very fact that the respondents delayed the proceedings at every stage, discloses lack of seriousness in the matter. It is urged that though the Enquiry Officer held that some of the charges against the petitioner are not proved, the disciplinary authority differed with the findings without issuing any notice. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the lapses on the part of the petitioner came to light over the years, and soon thereafter, proceedings were initiated. Heard Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the respondents. The dates mentioned in the preceding paragraphs disclose that the respondents themselves did not feel any seriousness, or importance in the matter. It took 12 years for them to point out certain lapses on the part of the petitioner, which on the face of it are minor. The second charge sheet is in no way differ, except as to timing. On his part, the petitioner submitted his explanation within the stipulated time. The respondents took four years to appoint an Enquiry Officer and that exercise went on for about three years. In his report, the Enquiry Officer held some charges as proved and others not. For instance, in relation to the alleged delay in remittance of professional tax, the Enquiry Officer held that the amount involved is meager, suggesting thereby that the charge is not serious. As regards irregularities in recording entries in the key register, the Enquiry Officer held that the charge is not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with these findings. Though it is competent for the disciplinary authority to differ with the findings recorded by an Enquiry Officer, the law requires that he must issue a show cause notice to the delinquent employee requiring him to explain as to why different view on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, be not taken. Such an exercise was not undertaken in the instant case. To that extent, a serious flaw had crept into the proceedings. In none of the charges it is alleged that the petitioner had derived any financial benefit, or that the bank had sustained any loss. Trivial instances of the use of discretion by the petitioner in the matter of sanction of loans were pointed out. Such deviations can assume the character of misconduct, if only any corresponding loss to the bank or gain to the petitioner was proved. Though the delay by itself would not disable an employee to initiate disciplinary proceedings, the Courts can take note of it to assess the seriousness of the matter. The very fact that the employer has not chosen to move in the matter, discloses that he too did not feel any serious dereliction on the part of the employee. The delayed initiation of proceedings is fraught with its own consequences. Firstly, it will be difficult to expect the evidence to remain, in tact over the years. Secondly, the charged employee may not remember every aspect and offer an effective explanation. As a matter of fact, the delay in initiation of such proceedings can itself be a factor to proceed against the person, who was supposed to initiate the proceedings. The observations made by the Division Bench of M.P. High Court in Sadashiv Shivram Garud v. Food Corporation of India[1], become relevant. This Court is of the view that, while the petitioner cannot be given clean chit as altogether, the action of the respondents, which suffers from several infirmities, cannot be permitted to stand. Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed, directing that the punishment imposed against the petitioner shall stand modified as the one to be without cumulative effect. Since the petitioner had retired from service, he shall be entitled to be paid the consequential benefits as a result of the modification of the punishment. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23.12.2010. GJ [1] 2004 (1) LLJ 79 (MP)