Judgment : 1. PETITIONER, who is the Junior Engineer in the department of Irrigation, by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has made a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider him for promotion from the date when his juniors were promoted as assistant Engineer, and further to quash the alleged departmental proceeding which is under contemplation in pursuance of the order dated 13.4.1982. 2. THE facts of the case, briefly stated are as under: It appears that when the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer, Tube well Construction Division, Varanasi, certain irregularities were noticed in the construction of 'gul' for the tube-well division Purwa, Akbar Patti and Cheel, which was done in his supervision in the year 1969-70. Sri I. Khan, Executive Engineer, tube-well Construction Division, who was entrusted with the enquiry regarding the alleged inferior work, in his report found that on account of inferior work the government has suffered a loss of Rs. 2021/- and therefore, he suggested to recover the said amount from the contractor. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the said amount was subsequently recovered from the contractor. However, it appears that the State Government by letter dated 10. 4. 1982, asked the Superintending engineer, Irrigation Department to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and also to recover the amount of Rs. 2021/- from the contractor on the basis of certain aspersions made by the Vigilance in its enquiry report. Although, according to the petitioner the aforesaid vigilance enquiry was conducted against one sri Jagannath Srivastava, Assistant Engineer, and no notice or opportunity to place his defence at any point of time was given to the petitioner. However, it appears that in pursuance of the State Government's letter referred above no action was taken in the matter and the petitioner had also no knowledge of such letter or vigilance enquiry being made against Sri Jagannath Prasad Srivastava, Assistant Engineer and the matter remained pending in the department. When several juniors to the petitioner were promoted as Assistant Engineers without considering his case, he made representation claiming his promotion then respondent no. When several juniors to the petitioner were promoted as Assistant Engineers without considering his case, he made representation claiming his promotion then respondent no. 4 by its letter dated 2.6.1995 directed the Executive Engineer to start departmental proceeding against the petitioner for stoppage of increments on the basis of the vigilance report in connection with one Sri Jagannath Prasad Srivastava, Assistant Engineer for the alleged irregularities said to have committed in the year 1969-70 when the petitioner was posted at Varanasi, 3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner now cannot be proceeded departmentally after a lapse of 25 years. He further argued that the alleged loss of Rs. 2021/- caused to the Government on account of inferior work, was already recovered from the contractor and loss suffered by the State has already been compensated. 4. THIS petition was filed on 16.1.1996 and by order dated 18.1.1996, time till 23.1.1996 was allowed to the learned Standing Counsel for filing counter-affidavit. Again on 24.2.1996 three weeks' and no more time was granted to the learned standing Counsel. On 22.3.1996 it was again adjourned at the request of the standing Counsel and ordered to be listed in the next cause list. Inspite of so many adjournments the respondent chose not to file counter affidavit with the result the assertions made in the writ petition remained uncontroverted. It is the settled legal position that departmental proceedings can not be kept pending for an indefinite period affecting the future promotion of an employee unless there is a plausible ground for the same. In the case in hand, the alleged irregularities are for the period 1969-70 and on an enquiry an order was passed to recover the amount of loss suffered by the State Government from the contractor, which was subsequently recovered from the contractor, and at that point of time the department or the State Government did not choose to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, and after lapse of quite long period, i.e., sometime in the year 1980, on the basis of vigilance report submitted against Sri jagannath Srivastava in which certain aspersion was made against the petitioner, a decision was taken to initiate proceedings in the year 1982, which has also not yet been started. Therefore, in our opinion, on the ground of pendency of the so called departmental proceedings on stale charge, the petitioner can not be denied of his promotion. 5. IN the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and others ( AIR 1990 SC 1308 ), the Apex Court upheld the order of Administrative Tribunal quashing the departmental proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches. The Apex Court held that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry after a delay of 12 years in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for such an inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo. 6. IN the instant case, as stated above, nothing has been done except that a decision was taken as far back as in the year 1982 to initiate departmental proceedings. Even the charges were not served on the petitioner. Respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit explaining as to what prevented them to initiate proceedings in pursuance to the decision taken in the year 1982 and therefore, it would be arbitrary and unfair to deny the promotion on the basis of stale and old charges. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any justification to withhold the promotion of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of so-called departmental proceedings. 7. IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with cost. The respondents are directed to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner as assistant Engineer and if he is found otherwise fit and entitled for such promotion, to promote him from the date when his juniors were promoted, notwithstanding the alleged contemplated proceedings, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Petition Allowed.