JUDGMENT 1. - H.C.Das Chhabra who was initially appointed as Asstt. Engineer (Mechanical) after his selection by the Selection Committee under administrative control of the Chairman, Indira Gandhi Canal Project Rajasthan (respondent No.1), joined on 18.11.1965 in pursuance of his appointment order dated 8.11.1965 (Annexure-1). In the final seniority list published by order dated 31.3.1977, for the post of Asstt.Engineer (Mechanical), name of the petitioner stood at S.No.30. 2. The petitioner was suspended under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short "CCA Rules") by order dated 9.2.1984 (Annexure-2) in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings initiated against him, by the Secretary, Rajasthan Canal Board (respondent No.2). 3. The petitioner urged that a complaint was allegedly lodged to respondent No.1 who sent the same for investigation to the Anti Corruption Department and for that reason he was suspended. However, upon the said complaint, the investigation was conducted but as a result of the enquiry, none of the allegations made in the said complaint were found by the Anti Corruption Department to be substantiated and, therefore, it dropped the matter by communication dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3) to the Superintending Engineer (Admn.) (respondent No.1). 4. The petitioner contended that despite the communications as to the close of the enquiry to the said complaint under letter dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3), he was continued to be suspended for more than three years which was revoked by reinstating him in service under order dated 20.4.1987 (Annexure-4) but the question of payment of salary and regularisation for his suspension period was kept pending subject to the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. 5. In my considered view, keeping the petitioner under suspension for more than three years without initiation of any disciplinary or criminal proceedings was highly irrationale, arbitrary and without foundation rather unconstitutional, because for the reasons best known to the respondents no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner during his suspension period so also till he was reinstated in service by revoking his suspension by order dated 20.4.1987 while on the contrary, after having been reinstated in service by revocation of his suspension, the petitioner was promoted by the review DPC by order dated 27.12.1989 (Annexure-5) to the post of Executive Engineer for the vacancy and quota of the year 1978. 6. 6. The petitioner contended that after about six years from the date of his suspension (9.2.1984) and three years from the date of revocation of his suspension (20.4.1987), while on the one hand, he was given a pat at his back by giving promotion to the next senior post as aforesaid, surprisingly respondents remained un-deterred and to his utter dismay and surprise, a charge sheet was issued to him by memo dated 29.1.1990 (Annexure-6) for the incident of the year 1983-84 during his posting at Disposal Sub Division I, IGNP, Suratgarh, which was only for four months (from 1.9.1983 to 10.2.1984). According to the allegations of the charge sheet, the petitioner is alleged to ve shown supervisory negligence resulting into loss to the State exchequer and thus did not show due diligence in checking muster rolls. This was against well settled norms of the dictum of the Apex Court that the old and stale material should not be made the basis for punishing the delinquent and rather the disciplinary authority should not travel beyond a period of 4-5 years immediately preceding the alleged delinquency. From the perusal of the charge sheet (Ann.6) it is rather apparent that there is absolutely no nexus regarding the alleged supervisory negligence and the loss attributed to the State exchequer since both the aspects remained un-substaintiated by any cogent and reliable evidence and further as to how and in what manner the petitioner was responsible for the said delinquency which remained un-explained on the record. 7. In written statement of his defence (Annexure-7) dated 7.1.1992, the petitioner averred inter-alia that from the very inception of the project since 1957, the work of coal was being handled by the Civil Division of Project only. The concerned Consumer Civil Divisions were made consignee who were responsible for unloading, loading and carriage from Railway Station to the Storing Sites. Subsequently, pursuant to the policy decision taken by the then Chief Engineer, this task was entrusted to the Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Central Store Bikaner which was executed by its Disposal Sub-Division I, Suratgarh. The Addl.Chief Engineer (Mechanical) had issued order w.e.f. 1.9.1983 in compliance of which the work was commenced and the tenders were invited and in order to avoid heavy warfage and demurrage, the Executive Engineer endorsed a copy of the letter to the Asstt. Engineer (Disposal) Sub-Division I, Suratgarh and the responsibility was entrusted to the petitioner. The Addl.Chief Engineer (Mechanical) had issued order w.e.f. 1.9.1983 in compliance of which the work was commenced and the tenders were invited and in order to avoid heavy warfage and demurrage, the Executive Engineer endorsed a copy of the letter to the Asstt. Engineer (Disposal) Sub-Division I, Suratgarh and the responsibility was entrusted to the petitioner. Despite his due diligence, facing several difficulties to arrange labour on the prevailing rates on account of the festival holidays which increased labour wages as a result of price escalation, the petitioner made his best efforts to overcome those difficulties and this fact has been highlighted and explained in his defence and according to him, on the one hand, he had to incur extra expenditure in rehandling of the coal, as a result of which huge demurrage was saved, while, on the other hand supervisory negligence is attributed to him for which he could not be held responsible, since the allegations were hypothetical in nature. The petitioner notwithstanding having furnished his suitable explanation with a view to explain the allegations, but in gross violation of the will settled principles of law and natural justice, he was denied opportunity of personal hearing and the matter remained undecided and was purposely kept pending not only till the date of his retirement on 30.4.1992 but also thereafter during pendency of this writ petition, it remains undecided till date. 8. The petitioner preferred this writ petition on 28.2.1995 wherein he has challenged the sustainability of the charge sheet (Ann.6) as well as the Departmental Enquiry which has been kept pending for a long time regarding incident relating to the period 1983-84 and specifically for the period when he was posted at Disposal Sub-Division I, IGNP, Suratgarh from 1.9.1983 to 10.2.1984 i.e. for a period of only four months. He has also sought the relief of salary dues and other allowances for the period of his suspension (i.e. 9.2.84 to 20.4.87) alongwith interest . He has also sought the relief of salary dues and other allowances for the period of his suspension (i.e. 9.2.84 to 20.4.87) alongwith interest . 18% p.a. thereon, since the order of suspension stood revoked by the respondents themselves vide order dated 20.4.1987 by which he was placed under suspension for more than 3 years without any enquiry after which he was reinstated by the respondents as discussed above and for quashing the departmental enquiry initiated pursuant to the charge sheet dated 29.1.1990 so also further claiming consequential benefits like fixation of his pay under revised pay scale rules and allowances w.e.f. 1987 on the post of XEN as per sub-rule 11(a) of Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Engineering Services (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954. It has further been contended that the respondents have not made the fixations of the petitioner's salary under the revised rules till date which came into force after 1979, and also payment of pensionary and other consequential benefits in accordance with the Rules. 9. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondents have contended inter-alia that the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet dated 29.1.1990 after a lapse of about two years on or about 7.1.1992 and thereafter upon his retirement on 30.4.1992, he was granted provisional pension according to the service rules vide order dated 24.8.1993 in view of the contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. With regard to the pay and increments for the period of his suspension, it was contended that it was subject matter of disciplinary inquiry since it had not been completed, the pay fixation etc. for the suspension period could only be extended to him after finalisation and subject to the result of the disciplinary proceedings. 10. With regard to the pay and increments for the period of his suspension, it was contended that it was subject matter of disciplinary inquiry since it had not been completed, the pay fixation etc. for the suspension period could only be extended to him after finalisation and subject to the result of the disciplinary proceedings. 10. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the claim of the petitioner and counter claim of the respondents in their reply, I am of the view that the sole question and controversy in this writ petition is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the charge sheet dated 29.1.1990 for the incident which relates back to the period from 1.9.1983 to 10.2.1984 when the petitioner was posted at Disposal Sub Division 1, IGNP, Suratgarh, and which were kept pending till final hearing of this writ petition without any plausible explanation on the part of the respondents for undue delay deserve to be quashed particularly when he had also been promoted on the post of XEN during the aforesaid period ? 11. The fate of this writ petition hinges on the outcome of the aforesaid question because if the said question is decided affirmatively and in favour of the petitioner and the disciplinary proceedings are quashed, then as a consequence thereof, the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits including the salary for the suspension period, pay fixation under revised pay Scales Rules, 1979 and so also the consequential benefits as admissible to him under the Revised Pay Rules and also the pensionary benefits. 12. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and relevant pleading alongwith other material on record. Prima-facie, I am of the opinion that the disciplinary proceedings in question deserve to be quashed for the reasons assigned herein below. At the outset it shall be appropriate to deal with the averments made by the petitioner which were not disputed by the respondents in their reply. The relevant para 5 of the writ petition and counter reply thereto runs as under: "5. At the outset it shall be appropriate to deal with the averments made by the petitioner which were not disputed by the respondents in their reply. The relevant para 5 of the writ petition and counter reply thereto runs as under: "5. That in this regard as the petitioner come to know now, a complaint was received in the office of respondent No.1 which was sent for examination to Anti Corruption Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and on account of this alone, the petitioner had been suspended. The investigation was conducted by the Anti Corruption Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur and vide letter dated 26.12.85 the then Addl.S.P.(PE) informed the Superintending Engineer (Adorn.), IGNP, Bikaner that as a result of enquiry none of the allegations contained in the complaint could be substantiated and therefore the matter was closed. However, this fact did not come to knowledge of the petitioner nor any information was given to the petitioner and he was continued under suspension without any further enquiry." "5. That the contents of para No.5 of the writ petition are not disputed. It is, however, submitted that the charge-sheet under Rule 16 CCA Rules was served upon the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 29.1.1990." 13. Thus, what has emerged as a result of above discussion is that firstly the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 9.2.1984 (Annexure-2) during his posting as Asstt. Engineer, Stores of Disposal Sub-Division Suratgarh on the complaint which was subject-matter of the enquiry before the Anti Corruption Department. None of the allegations contained in that complaint could be substantiated upon the enquiry made by the Anti-Corruption Department and as a result of the enquiry thereto, the Preliminary enquiry was closed by the Anti-Corruption Department as communicated by letter dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3) in response to the letter No.4021/dt.25.7.1985 of the S.E. (Adm.) IGNP Bikaner. Letter dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3) has neither been controverted nor rebutted and rather the respondents have not disputed the outcome of the investigation on the basis of the complaint against the petitioner by the Anti-Corruption Department, Rajasthan as would be evident from the foregoing paras of the pleadings as referred to above. 14. Letter dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3) has neither been controverted nor rebutted and rather the respondents have not disputed the outcome of the investigation on the basis of the complaint against the petitioner by the Anti-Corruption Department, Rajasthan as would be evident from the foregoing paras of the pleadings as referred to above. 14. Undisputedly, the petitioner continued to be suspended from 9.2.1984 till 20.4.1987 when he was reinstated from his suspension in contemplation to the pending enquiry on the complaint referred to in the letter dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3) inasmuch as, vide order dated 27.12.1989 (Annexure-5) he was promoted by the Departmental Promotion Committee, to the post of Executive Engineer and for the self-same allegations contained in the complaint referred to in the letter dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3), the charge sheet was issued on 29.1.1990 vide Annexure-6 after the lapse of six years for the incident relating to the period from 1.9.1983 to 10.2.1984. Therefore, withholding the salary for the suspension period for the allegations which were subject matter of the enquiry before the Anti-Corruption Department and which could not have been substantiated as founded by the Enquiry Authority like the Anti Corruption Department as communicated in its letter dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3), was totally uncalled for and arbitrary on the part of the respondents. Hence, there was absolutely no justification for the respondents to conduct enquiry de-novo at their whims and fancies which was contemplated after the lapse of about 6 years of the suspension without any justification and plausible explanation. That apart, after the preliminary enquiry was dosed, then the petitioner was reinstated in service upon revocation of his suspension on 20.4.1987, and he was promoted to the next higher post of Executive Engineer and till then no charge sheet was issued, which was issued belatedly on 29.1.1990. Hence, the respondents had absolutely no justification to withhold any pecuniary benefits accrued to the petitioner on his salary as a result of pay revision under revised Pay Scale Rules, 1979 so also as revised from time to time thereafter. Thus, the impugned action of the respondents with regard to withholding the benefits of pay revision is declared to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 15. Moreover, I do not find any substance and justification in the only counter case urged by the respondents that pecuniary benefits to the petitioner were withheld by them because the enquiry was contemplated against him. Thus, the impugned action of the respondents with regard to withholding the benefits of pay revision is declared to be illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 15. Moreover, I do not find any substance and justification in the only counter case urged by the respondents that pecuniary benefits to the petitioner were withheld by them because the enquiry was contemplated against him. This counter case must fail on the ground because had there been contemplation of the enquiry or any material justifying the initiation of such enquiry against the petitioner while the Department itself had conceded that there was no substance in the charge of supervisory negligence resulting in loss of revenue which could not be attributed to the petitioner alone and for which he was not directly responsible as is evident from the Enquiry Report dated 27.9.1995 which has been placed on the record pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 19.3.1998. From the perusal of the said Enquiry Report it is evident that Departmental Enquiry was initiated against the petitioner alongwith two other delinquent officials, namely R.P.Sharma, Executive Engineer and Jagjit Singh, Asstt. Engineer of Irrigation Department. While Shri Jagjit Singh was exonerated on the basis of findings that he must have prepared muster-roll properly since he was only to indicate names & addresses of the concerned workman alongwith the duration of work undertaken, while the payment of wages was to be made by the Executive Engineer. Hence, as per the finding of the Disciplinary Authority, while Shri Jagjit Singh and R.P. Sharma other two delinquent officials of the respondent-Department stood exonerated of the same charge of supervisory negligence as regards preparation of muster-rolls, the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily held guilty of the said charge. 16. Surprising enough what prevented the respondents to initiate any enquiry against the petitioner for a period of six years from the date of alleged delinquency and what were those sparing reasons to initiate Enquiry after lapse of six years from the date of suspension (9.2.1984) till his promotion on (27.12.1989) during which no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner as stated above, and rather preliminary enquiry initiated earlier was closed for the allegations for which he was suspended, his suspension was revoked on 20.4.1987 and consequently, he was promoted to the next higher post on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and those reasons remains unexplained on the record. These circumstances irresistibly give a reasonable inference to the contrary that there were no justifiable reasons for conducting the enquiry or to have kept the same pending for a period of three years or to withhold pecuniary benefits to the petitioner, and that being so, charge sheet which was issued belatedly on 29.1.1990 vide memo (Annexure-6) deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 17. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the salary withheld by the respondents for the period he remained under suspension from 9.2.1984 to 20.4.1987 and the pay-fixation on account of revision of pay under revised pay scales which came into force under Revised Pay Rules, 1979, alongwith interest on the arrears of the salary accrued as per aforesaid order, because in the above circumstances, undisputedly the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Executive Engineer for the vacancy of 1978 vide order dated 27.12.1989 (Annexure-5) during which no enquiry was pending nor any charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and rather preliminary enquiry was closed vide letter dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3) and hence the petitioner was entitled to the entire benefits and fixation of pay alongwith allowances w.e.f. 1978 on the post of XEN, under the respective Revised Pay Rules, 1979 as revised from time to time consequently till his retirement from services of respondents on attaining the age of superannuation. 18. At this stage, I deem it appropriate to advert to the circumstances which lead to irresistible conclusion for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated under the charge sheet dated 29.1.1990 (Annexure-6). 19. It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was posted as AEN, Rajasthan Canal Project Stores and Disposal Sub-Division, Suratgarh from 1.9.1983 to 10.2.1984, a complaint was allegedly received and then sent for making enquiry to the Anti Corruption Department and in contemplation thereof he was suspended by order dated 9.2.1984 (Annexure-2) and by letter dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3), the Anti Corruption Department in response to respondent's letter No.4021/dt. 25.7.1985 communicated that as a result of enquiry none of the allegations contained in the complaint against the petitioner (H.C.Das Chhabra) could be substantiated and therefore the said enquiry had been closed. 25.7.1985 communicated that as a result of enquiry none of the allegations contained in the complaint against the petitioner (H.C.Das Chhabra) could be substantiated and therefore the said enquiry had been closed. As a result of the closure of the D.E., the petitioner was reinstated from suspension and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer and till then neither any disciplinary proceedings were initiated nor any charge sheet was issued till 29.1.1990 when all of a sudden, the respondents for reasons best known to them thought of initiating enquiry denovo and second charge sheet on the basis of same allegations contained in the complaint as served earlier on the petitioner, referred to above, relating to the period of petitioner's posting at Suratgarh, was issued for which Anti-Corruption Department found no material which could be substantiated containing the same allegations as made earlier against the petitioner. 20. During the course of hearing, the respondents have neither controverted nor contended by adducing any evidence in rebuttal that the allegations in complaint referred to by the Anti Corruption Department in its letter dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure-3) were different than the allegations on which second charge sheet impugned in this writ petition was served afresh on the petitioner. Therefore, these facts and circumstances referred to above lead to an irresistible conclusion that once the enquiry was closed having no substance in the complaint then for the self-same allegations second charge sheet impugned herein, is not only vague and based on no foundation and substance but also no disciplinary proceeding on the same allegations in the nature of fresh and de-novo second charge sheet at the instance of the department could either be initiated or contemplated for which the enquiry was kept pending against the petitioner. 21. Further, after exoneration of the allegations of the charge and consequential reinstatement of the petitioner in service there was absolutely no justification to initiate fresh enquiry on the self-same charges, which obviously had no foundation whatsoever and would be nothing but reflection of the malafides and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents as is borne out from their own conduct and the manner in which second charge sheet was issued to him and thereafter kept pending till the petitioner retired from service on attaining superannuation on 30.4.1992. During this period between 9.4.1984 to 29.1.1990, the incident for which the petitioner was subjected to the departmental inquiry twice, related to the period 1983-84 (1.9.1983) to 10.2.1984) in connection with the alleged supervisory negligence when the petitioner was posted at Disposal Sub-Division Suratgarh. Thus, the irregularities which were the subject matter of the impugned disciplinary proceedings is alleged to have taken place between the years 1983-84. It is not the case of the respondents that they were not aware of the said irregularities. Rather there is unequivocal admission of the respondents and undisputed material on record, and hence this leaves no doubt that the charge of Supervisory negligence for which the petitioner was exonerated earlier could not be framed afresh on the basis of same irregularities which were attributed earlier and the investigation at the instance of the Anti Corruption Department were going on since the date of suspension of the petitioner i.e. 9.2.1984. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than six years to issue charge sheet on 29.1.1990. Conversely, it has not been disputed by the respondents that even in December 1985 itself the Anti Corruption Department dosed the enquiry as a result of its investigation and inquiry into the complaint. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in not only issuing the second charge memo for the self-same allegations on which D.E. was dosed but also for not concluding the proceedings on the second charge memo from 29.1.1990 till retirement 30.4.1992 so also thereafter till filing of the respondents' reply and final hearing in this writ petition. Therefore, in my considered view, it will be unfair to permit the department to be proceeded with even at the final stage when the order of punishment is awaited as the enquiry authority has submitted its report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. My view is fortified with the observations made in (1) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another : AIR 1990 SC 1308 , (2) Hukam Singh v. State : 1986 RLR 435 and (3) Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan and other : 1990(1) RLR 175 . 22. My view is fortified with the observations made in (1) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another : AIR 1990 SC 1308 , (2) Hukam Singh v. State : 1986 RLR 435 and (3) Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan and other : 1990(1) RLR 175 . 22. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh (supra), the Apex Court observed, 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 lathes 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 are said to have taken place between the years 1975-1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know 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." 23. Thus, in the absence of sufficient explanation, this Court in appropriate cases like present one, can quash the proceedings of the enquiry. The petitioner has, in the present case, already suffered the agony of prosecution for about eight years from the date of issuing second charge memo (29.1.1990) till the inquiry has been concluded by submitting report on 27.9.1995 whereupon final order at the instance of the disciplinary authority is awaited for last more than about three years and in this manner, the sword of enquiry has been hanging over petitioner's head since the date of his suspension (9.2.1984). He was compelled to file writ petition for getting the benefits which were due to him after the suspension order passed against him was revoked and a preliminary inquiry was closed on 26.12.1985 vide Annexure-3 and after five years of closure of the P.E., the charge memo was issued on 29.1.1990' which could not have been concluded by the respondents till filing of their reply to the writ petition and even till the final hearing took place on 27.3.1998. In my considered view, it is a case in which neither the interest of service nor the public interest warrant continuance of disciplinary enquiry initiated after over seven years of the incident and after five years of the closure of the P.E. Thus, on the ground of belated charge sheet and lathes on the part of the respondents in initiation of proceedings and also on the ground of malafides, the presumption regarding which cannot be ruled out, in my considered opinion, the enquiry proceedings must not be allowed to continue and are deemed to have lapsed by influx of time for the reason of inordinate delay. 24. Next ground for not allowing further continuance of the enquiry is that the petitioner had submitted a comprehensive written statement of his defence to which the disciplinary authority did not even bother to consider it before issuing an order appointing enquiry officer or proceeding further into the enquiry. Requirement of Rule 16(4) has been treated as an empty formality by the respondents. Therefore, the disciplinary authority had failed to apply its mind to the written defence submitted by the petitioner-delinquent. I lend support from the decision in (4) Dr. B.K. Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan : (1993(1) RLR page 47 . 25. Last ground for quashing the disciplinary proceedings is that as would be crystal dear from a bare reading of the impugned charge memo dated 29.1.1990, there is no allegation against the petitioner of having acted negligently with ulterior motive or ill-intention. What has been alleged against him is that he has not acted with utmost care in checking muster rolls prepared by the officials before signing thereon by him and thus has not acted in accordance with the requirements laid down in the orders of the State Govt., and his act showed carelessness on his part. What has been alleged against him is that he has not acted with utmost care in checking muster rolls prepared by the officials before signing thereon by him and thus has not acted in accordance with the requirements laid down in the orders of the State Govt., and his act showed carelessness on his part. It has not been shown either in the allegations to the charge memo or in the enquiry report itself, that on account of the error or negligence or carelessness on his part either the petitioner-delinquent or somebody else was in any manner benefited. Similarly, it has not been alleged nor it has come on record that the act of the petitioner tends to disclose that his integrity has been doubtful or that it has been as a result of lack of his integrity. 26. The charges in case of the petitioner in other words related to his inefficiency and besides negligence the charges refer to lack of qualities, foresight, indecisiveness. Failure to come up to the highest expectations of an officer holding a responsible post or lack of aptitude or qualities of leadership would not constitute misconduct or as failure to maintain devotion to duty unless lack of integrity is alleged and proved entailing penalty. Similar view was observed by the Apex Court in (5) Union of India v. J.Ahmed ( 1979(2) SCC 286 ) . In the case of the present petitioner, as observed above, there is neither allegation in the charge memo nor proved on record that the impugned act of negligence on the part of the petitioner was as a result of ulterior motive or ill-intention or it proves lack of integrity to the petitioner with a view to gain himself or somebody else benefited. Besides, there is a total absence of allegation of malafide against the petitioner. It must therefore be held that the charge sheet issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 29.1.1990 is without jurisdiction and justification and being non-est in the eyes of law. As a legal coronary to the above discussions, the impugned charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceedings thereon are accordingly quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits thereto including salary and allowances withheld by the respondents on pretext of the contemplated Disciplinary Enquiry or initiation of the enquiry proceedings. 27. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. As a legal coronary to the above discussions, the impugned charge-sheet and the disciplinary proceedings thereon are accordingly quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits thereto including salary and allowances withheld by the respondents on pretext of the contemplated Disciplinary Enquiry or initiation of the enquiry proceedings. 27. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The departmental inquiry initiated under charge sheet dated 29/1/1990 is quashed. The respondents are directed to pay and release salary and allowances for the period of suspension i.e. from 9.4.84 to 20.4.87 alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum in favour of the petitioner. The respondents are further directed to release consequential benefits accrued as a result of quashing of the departmental inquiry (supra) such as arrears of salary & allowances after making pay fixation under various revised pay scale rules which came into force after 1979 till his retirement for the posts held by him during that period including the post of Executive Engineer, and after making revision of pay and payment of the arrears of pay in pursuance of the aforesaid order, prepare pension papers of the petitioner and get his pensionary benefits released. The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of interest @ 18% per annum on the payment of arrears which stand due by virtue of this judgment from the date of its accrual till the payment thereof. The directions issued by this Court under this judgment be complied with by all the respondents within a period of four months from the date the petitioner furnishes certified copy of this judgment to the respondent No.1. No order as to costs.Petition referred. *******