D. K. TRIVEDI, J. By means of these two writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order of cognizance as well as the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Special Case No. 3 of 198) in the court of IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Hardoi under Section 5 (1) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The petitioner Har Prasad Srivastava was Asstt. Accountant in U. P. S. E. B. office at Hardoi and the petitioner Radhey Shyam Roy was the Accountant in U. P. S. E. B, office at Hardoi. In 1976, the Government directed initiation of open enquiry against several electricity divisions and in compliance of the said order, open enquiry was conducted in which petitioners were found involved in embezzlement alongwith other persons including Krishna Singh Taragi, who was the main accused. On 11-4-1979 the Board accorded the sanction for prosecution of the petitioners as well as other persons. 3. In December, 1983 the State Government issued a G. O. directing that the old cases in which an amount of less than Rs. 20,000 is involved, be dropped if the persons involved deposit the amount and after departmental enquiry the Board took a decision for withdrawal of the cases. In compliance, of the said G O. the Board took a decision and fixed liability of the petitioner Har Prasad Srivastava to the tune of Rs. 16162 80 vide Annexure-A 1 j and Radhey Shyam to the tune of Rs. 543. 3. 38. The petitioner Har Prasad Srivastava in compliance of the said decision deposited the amount, on 8-5-1989 and Radhey Shyam Roy deposited the said money on 6-5-1989. After deposit of the said money, the Board vide its letter dated 10-5-1989 contained in Annexure-3, sent to Secretary, State of U. P. , requested the Government to drop the proceedings against the petitioners as they have already deposited the amount in compliance of the said G. O. and its copy was also sent to S. P. Vigilance. 4. Again, the Board vide office Memo, dated June 15, 1989, contained in Annexure-2, informed the petitioners that as the money has already been deposited by them in compliance of the said G. O. , hence the cases are dropped against them with a warning that in future they will be careful in purcuase of the store goods. 5. 4. Again, the Board vide office Memo, dated June 15, 1989, contained in Annexure-2, informed the petitioners that as the money has already been deposited by them in compliance of the said G. O. , hence the cases are dropped against them with a warning that in future they will be careful in purcuase of the store goods. 5. It appears that in spite of all these proceedings a charge-sheet has been submitted by the vigilance department on 26-10-1989 an J therefore, the petitioners have filed the above mentioned writ petitions praying for quashing of the said charge-sheet as well as the proceedings on the ground that the charge- sheet has wrongly been submitted and in fact she petitioners in compliance of the said order have already deposited the money and their cases have been dropped by the Board, hence vigilance department has no right to proceed with the said prosecution. 6. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the incident is of the year 3 970 and the enquiry was conducted in 1976. The petitioners were employed in U. P. S. E. B. and now Har Prasad Srivastava has been retired from service. From the perusal of Annexure-A-15 it appears that Sri Taragi was the main accused as Sri Taragi had placed the orders as well as made the payments. The petitioners were working under Sri Taragi and looking into the facts that the petitioners have already suffered mental agony for the last about 17 years, in our opinion, no useful purpose would be served in continuance of their prosecution especially when the State has already issued a G. O. taking a lenient view and in compliance of the said G. O. the Board has dropped their cases. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed and in the counter-affidavit the main ground for continuance of these proceedings is that the decision of the Board on the basis of the said O. O. is not correct According to the opposite parties the amount involved was Rs. Forty-one thousand and odd, hence the G. O. in question is not applicable and the decision taken by the Board is not correct. 8. Annexure-A 15 clearly shows that the petitioner Radhey Shyam Roy is responsible for an amount of Rs. 5433. 38 p. and Har Prasad Srivastave was responsible for Rs. 16,162. 80. Forty-one thousand and odd, hence the G. O. in question is not applicable and the decision taken by the Board is not correct. 8. Annexure-A 15 clearly shows that the petitioner Radhey Shyam Roy is responsible for an amount of Rs. 5433. 38 p. and Har Prasad Srivastave was responsible for Rs. 16,162. 80. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the decision of the Board cannot be said to be contrary to the said G. O. 9. Apart from this, there is one more aspect in this case. It is settled law that fundamental right gauranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India now includes the right of an accused to have speedy trial. In the present case, the enquiry was initiated in 1976 in respect of some transaction which took place in 1970. The charge-sheet was submitted by the Vigilance Department in October, 1989. But in the mentime the Board got the matter dropped after accepting the disputed amount from the petitioners. The mental torture suffered by the accused for such a long length of time is to be treated as sufficient punishment. 10. On behalf of the State it is contended that the accused has right to speedy trial, but in the present case charge-sheet has been submitted only in 1989, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial is being dragged. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned Standing Counsel because in our opinion the Board or the Vigilance Department cannot have the luxary of dragging the enquiry for years together. 11. In view of the facts stated above, in our opinion, no useful purpose will be served in continuing all these proceedings and, therefore, the present writ petitions are allowed and the proceedings of Special Case No. 3 of 1989 pending in the court of IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Hardoi under Section 5 (1) 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .