should be made to conclude the proceedings within the reasonably extended period, depending upon the cause and the nature of the inquiry, not later than a year. In the said case, the suspension had continued for over 9 years. However, the departmental proceedings were not quashed. The Supreme Court held that the penalty of compulsory retirement was justified and rightly inflicted, emphasising that it was for the disciplinary authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed. The punishment imposed depends upon nature and gravity of charges, findings of the enquiry officer, entire service record of the delinquent employee, and other relevant factors, which have to be taken into account while exercising discretion on the imposition of penalty. In the final outcome, while upholding the order of penalty, it was held that the period of suspension should be taken into account by the respondents for determining the employee‟s pension. 20. The impugned order is a detailed one and on the said aspect has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and Another , AIR 1990 SC 1308, Food Corporation of India Vs. V.P. Bhatia 1998 (9) SCC 131, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakrishnan 1998 (4) SCC 154, State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal JT 1995 (2) SC 18 and P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D, T.N. Housing Board 2005 (6) SCC 636 and Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and Ors. (2013) 6 SCC 515. Many of these decisions relate to delay in initiation of the departmental proceedings and not directly with the question of delay in the conduct of the said proceedings. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has reached the right conclusion after making reference to Appala Swamy (supra) and A. Masilamani (supra) and as to the legal ratio that generally enquiry proceedings should not be quashed on the ground of delay in the
