12.The delay in initiating the disciplinary action against the petitioner was enormous, for which, no explanation was forthcoming from the respondents. The Courts have time and again held that the unexplained delay will constitute a great prejudice to the rights of the employee concerned in the matter of disciplinary action. In this case, there had been a delay of more than 15 years in initiating action against the petitioner and the delay by itself can be a reason for this Court to interfere with the disciplinary action initiated against him. Moreover, for the discrepancies, which had happened from the years 1983-84, how could the petitioner be saddled with the responsibility when he was appointed as a Special Officer only on 13.10.2001. Therefore, per se the initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner appears to be on a mala fide consideration and therefore, this Court finds that such disciplinary action initiated by the 3rd respondent suffers from colourable exercise of power. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a case of no evidence even otherwise and therefore, the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No.4 will have to be interfered with, as such finding has not been supported by any materials whatsoever. In view of the fact that the findings of the same Enquiry Officer in respect of other Charges are in favour of the petitioner, such findings will hold good for Charge No.4 also. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer's findings in respect of Charge No.4 cannot be singled out for any exception, which ultimately invited the impugned penalty from the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the appellate Authorities.
