As per case facts, the petitioner challenged two charge sheets and subsequent orders appointing Inquiry Officers. In the first case, as Drug Controller, he allegedly constituted an unauthorized committee to ... amend central guidelines and forwarded its report without government approval. In the second, he was accused of failing to verify transactions and not pursuing legal action against firms dealing in spurious drugs, indicating negligence. The petitioner contended that the charge sheets were issued with inordinate delay, were vague, and did not disclose any misconduct. The question arose whether the disciplinary proceedings should be quashed due to delay, vagueness, or lack of jurisdiction. Finally, the Court dismissed both Writ Petitions. It held that delay alone, without demonstrable prejudice, does not vitiate proceedings, the charges were specific enough, and the petitioner's competence and alleged misconduct were matters for the departmental Inquiry. The Court directed the expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, ensuring full opportunity for the petitioner.