1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 530 OF 2005 Union of India & Others ...Petitioners Versus P.L.Mukhija ...Respondent Mr. Ravi Shetty a/w. H.V.Mehta & N.D.Sharma i/b. Dr.T..C.Kaushik for Petitioners. Mr. M.I.sethna, Sr. Advocate a/w. J.B.Mishra for Respondent CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED:- 20th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. By separate order passed today, this writ petition is restored to the file for being heard on merits. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties for final hearing forthwith, by consent. 2. The limited grievance that needs to be addressed in the present petition is whether the respondent is entitled to derive benefit of the 2 order passed in the case of her colleague J.S.Rawat by the Tribunal, quashing the chargesheet in respect of the same transaction for which the respondent was purportedly proceeded for by way of departmental action. It is not in dispute that in so far as the original application filed by the co-employee J.S.Rawat, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench allowed the same by judgment dated 28th September, 2005. 3. The only basis on which the said original application of the co- employee has been allowed is that the chargesheet was issued in the year 2003 in respect of the irregularities committed in the year 1991 which came to the notice of the department around the same time in 1991. In other words, the proposed action against the co-employee J.S.Rawat was held to have vitiated on account of inordinate, unexplained and gross delay of 12 years. On that basis the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the co-employee J.S.Rawat. It is not in dispute that the said decision was challenged by the petitioner, Union of India before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh by way of Civil Writ Petition No.14335-388 of 2007. Even the said petition was decided against the petitioner 3 and the High Court affirmed the view taken by the Tribunal that in the facts of the present case, the matter ought not to proceed against the delinquent officer on account of gross delay. The decision of the High Court was carried in appeal before the Supreme Court by way of SLP (Civil) No.______ of 2008 (C.C.7756/2008). The said Special Leave Petition came to be summarily dismissed by the Apex Court. In other words, the opinion of the Tribunal as upheld of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, came to be confirmed by the Apex Court. 4. Considering the fact that the respondent was to face action on the basis of same transaction and in respect of the same circumstance referred to in the chargesheet against the co-employee J.S.Rawat, we find no reason to depart from the view already taken by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. That view has been upheld right upto the Apex Court. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondent that the issue raised in this petition is thus covered by the decision in the case of co-employee as referred to above. 4 5. The Counsel for the petitioner, however was at pains to submit that the decision in the case of co-employee can be distinguished because the respondent in the present petition was superior officer and essentially the respondent was responsible for the delay in taking action in relation to the irregularity which was noticed in the year 1991. We are not impressed by this submission. As a matter of fact, that very plea was taken on affidavit before the tribunal, as is noticed from paragraph no.5 of the impugned judgment. The tribunal has rejected the said plea of the department and proceeded to hold that admittedly the iregularity in question for which the respondent was proceeded for alleged misconduct did come to light as back as on 11th July, 1991. Immediately, thereafter further steps were taken, but no explanation is forthcoming as to what prevented the department to proceed against the respondent until year 2003, when the chargesheet was issued against the respondent as in the case of co-employee J.S.Rawat. We are in agreement with the opinion so recorded by the tribunal. Even in the case of respondent, the chargesheet issued is vitiated on account of inordinate, unexplained and gross delay. In the case of the co-employee the High Court has justly relied upon the decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh AIR 5 1990 SC 1308. The reason underlying the opinion of the Tribunal as also the High Court in the case of co-employee J.S.Rawat is squarely attracted to the case of the respondent before us. 6. Counsel for the petitioner however contended that neither the tribunal nor the High Court, while deciding the case of the co- employee J.S.Rawat; or for that matter while deciding the original application filed by the respondent before this Court, has recorded a clear finding that no prejudice was caused to the respondent on account of delay in issuance of chargesheet qua her. This argument does not commend to us. It is not possible to sustain this argument also because, as is noticed earlier in the case of co-employee J.S.Rawat, the department questioned the decision of the Tribunal right upto the Apex Court. The said decision has attained finality. It is unfathomable that the proposed departmental action against the respondent on the basis of similar set of facts and circumstances can be permitted on accepting this argument, which would be nothing short of traversity of justice. In our opinion, therefore, this argument will have to be merely stated to be rejected. 6 7. Accordingly, as no other contention has been canvassed before us, this petition is dismissed for the reasons already stated above. (R.Y.GANOO, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)