JUDGMENT 1. - The facts of this case depict the dismal story of the petitioner's suffering the agony of suspension ever since 1974. The petitioner who had started his career as a Ward-boy on 1st September, 1954 was promoted as Driver on 18th August, 1970. On 10th April, 1974 while he was working as Driver in the office of Dy. Chief Medical and Health Officer (Malaria), Medical and Health Department, Alwar an order was passed placing the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. After placing the petitioner under suspension by order dated 10th April, 1974, the proceedings which were contemplated against him and on account of which he was placed under suspension, were put in oblivion and the same remained under hibernation. The Department suddenly woke up in November, 1988 when by a memo dated 4th November, 1988 an inquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was proposed against the petitioner and the charges which have been levelled against the petitioner now in the year 1988 are for the incident of 1974 as under:- " ;g gS fd tc vki jk"V~h; eysfj;k mUewyu bZdkbZ] vyoj esa okgu pkyd ds in ij dk;Zjr Fks rc vkius okgu la[;k vkj0ts0,y0 6013 esa xyr izek.khdj.k fd;k rFkk HkkSfrd lR;kiu ds le; xyr vuqi;ksxh lkeku izLrqr djus ds nks"kh gSA tSlk fd vkjksi fooj.k i= esa vafdr fd;k gSA " The petitioner filed the reply to the said memo on 7th December, 1988. The petitioner has denied the charge. Even after December, 1988 no effective proceedings have taken place and the petitioner has stated while filing the writ petition on 9th January, 1990 that the last date in these proceedings for appearing before the Department was 19th June, 1989 as pointed out by Mr. Y.C. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. When this case came up before this Court on 6th March, 1990, a notice was ordered to be issued as to why this writ petition should not be admitted/disposed of. The service was effected on respondents and appearance was also entered and on the last date when the matter came up before this Court on 22nd August, 1990, the time was again granted to file the reply. No reply has been filed and the matter comes up before this Court for final disposal. 3. The sole contention raised by Mr. The service was effected on respondents and appearance was also entered and on the last date when the matter came up before this Court on 22nd August, 1990, the time was again granted to file the reply. No reply has been filed and the matter comes up before this Court for final disposal. 3. The sole contention raised by Mr. Y.C. Sharma before me is that the incident is as old as of 1974 for which the charge-sheet has been served in 1988 and no useful purpose would be served to continue these proceedings against the petitioner and the charge-sheet and proceedings against him must be quashed only on the ground of departmental inaction for not holding the proceedings for all these years. No explanation whats over has been furnished on behalf of the respondents as to why the proceedings were not taken from 1974 and why the charge-sheet was issued as late as in November, 1988 and why no effective proceedings have been held even thereafter. The only verbal submission made by the Addl. Govt. Advocate is that in this case a preliminary inquiry was held in the year 1987 and, therefore, the charge-sheet was issued in the year 1988. This is all the more painful that even preliminary inquiry was held in the year 1987 and yet in 1974 the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that an inquiry was contemplated against him. Shri Y.C. Sharma has placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1990 S.C. 1308 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh Para 4 of this case may be appropriately reproduced as under;- "The appeal against the order dated 16-12-1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any came to know of it only in 1987. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any came to know of it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage, in any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal." 4. The supreme Court took into consideration the inordinate delay in the matter of initiation of the inquiry in a case in which the irregularities had taken place between 1975 to 1977 and even after the expiry of 12 years period, the proceedings had not been initiated. Here is a case of more than 12 years and I agree with Shri Y.C. Sharma that no useful purpose can be served at this stage after a lapse of about 16 years now as to whether there was a wrong physical verification about the front excel for Vehicle No. RJL 6013. The reference may also be made to the decision of this Court reported in (1986) I, Judicial Surveyor, page No. 460= 1986 RLR 435 , Hukam Singh v. State wherein this Court has also taken a view that if an authority is invested with a power to take an action against somebody, such power must be exercised within a reasonable time. Para 9 of the above judgment is quoted as under:- "In the present case, the final order imposing the punishment was passed on 20.5.1969 and the petitioner was not even served with any show cause notice upto September, 1976, so, almost for a period of more than 9 years, the petitioner was not aware that any action has been initiated against him for enhancement of the punishment. It is true that the action was initiated within the reasonable time but that alone is not sufficient. If after initiating the action, the power is not exercised within a reasonable time then that too would be taken as an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the power. It was most unreasonable to enhance the penalty after lapse of 9 years more particularly, when for a period of 7 years, no notice was served on the petitioner. During all these nine years, the petitioner continued to serve in the capacity of Sub-Inspector of police. All powers, which are vested in the authorities under the Statute or the Rules should be exercised within a reasonable time else the exercise of the power can be found to be vitiated on the ground that it has been exercised in an unreasonable manner after a long lapse of time. The petitioner took it that he has been punished and he accepted the punishment. It would be highly unjust after lapse of 9 years, his punishment may be enhanced. Thus on this ground alone that the power has not been exercised within a reasonable time, in my opinion, the order dated October 23, 1978 enhancing the punishment deserves to be quashed." 5. In my opinion, in the facts of this case, it is not a case of mere delay or inordinate delay, i.e. simple lapse of time but of gross laches and further it is a case in which the petitioner has been made to suffer the agony of unduly prolonged suspension and humiliation for no fault on his part. The department is, therefore, guilty of laches and the mere fact that the preliminary inquiry was held in the year 1987 is only a poor apology for the long lapse of time. The law is often quoted that the suspension is no punishment but the cases/in which the suspension is prolonged as has been done in this case, it entails, much more serious and grave consequence and it affects the morale and whole personality of a Government servant who stands/demoralised before the society and his colleagues and even before his family and children. I find that it was hardly a case in which the petitioner should have been made to suffer the suspension for such a long period. I find that it was hardly a case in which the petitioner should have been made to suffer the suspension for such a long period. In the facts of this case, I am convinced that the charge-sheet and the inquiry proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed and no proceedings should be allowed to be continued against him and the suspension must be declared to be wholly unlawful and unwarranted. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash the charge-sheet and the allegation annexed as Annex. 2 dated 4-11-1988 and also quash the suspension order dated 10th April, 1974, Annex. 1 and direct that the petitioner be reinstated from suspension forthwith and he should be paid all consequential benefits right from 10th April, 1974 till the dale he is reinstated again as if he was never placed under suspension. The aforesaid directions will be carried out by the concerned authorities within a period of two months from the date the copy of the order is made available to the respondents, failing which the petitioner will also be entitled to claim interest on the arrears at the rate of 12% per annum. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.Petition Allowed. *******