JUDGMENT D. Sreedevi, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment in O.P. No. 5147 of 1992 dated 16th December 1992 of this Court. The appellant is the petitioner' in the Original Petition. 2. The appellant joined service as a Village Extension Officer in the Development Department. Later, he was promoted as Junior Agricultural Officer in the Agricultural Department. He had worked in the Neriyamangalam Agricultural Farm as Junior Agricultural Officer (JAO) from 5th July 1980 to 5th February 1981. He took leave from 5th February 1981, to 10th February 1981, The Farm Superintendent sanctioned that leave with effect from 6th February 1981. The appellant left the station on 5th February 1981, after handing over the key of the stock and stores to the Farm Superintendent. On 6th February 1981, one Mr. Joy Peter, an Agricultural Demonstrator, who was promoted as Junior Agricultural Officer, was posted in the place of the appellant. Joy Peter assumed charge of the stock and stores in the absence of the appellant. When the appellant reported duty after the expiry of the leave on 12th February 1981, the Farm Superintendent directed him to meet the Deputy Director of Agriculture to get a suitable posting. The appellant was reverted as Village Extension Officer in the Development Department. While working there, he received Ext. P-3 memo of charges dated 29th March 1,988, alleging that he had left Neriyamangalam Agricultural Farm on 6th February 1.981 without handing over charge of the stock and stores causing a shortage of the articles valuing Rs. 1,6,897.02. 3. According to the appellant, the memo of charges was baseless and unfounded. He submitted Ext. P-4 detailed statement of defence contending that when he was on leave the lock and key of the Farm were in the custody of the Superintendent, that while assuming charge Mr. 1,6,897.02. 3. According to the appellant, the memo of charges was baseless and unfounded. He submitted Ext. P-4 detailed statement of defence contending that when he was on leave the lock and key of the Farm were in the custody of the Superintendent, that while assuming charge Mr. Joy Peter failed to take charge of a large number of articles, that the Farm Superintendent who was inimical towards him, destroyed a large quantity of articles from the stock and stores, that without authority departmental enquiry was conducted in respect of the allegations against the appellant, that the appellant examined six witnesses to prove the destruction of the articles by the Farm Superintendent, that the enquiry was conducted eight years after the alleged incident, that the appellant traced out so many articles from the stores, which were shown in the memo of charges as missing items and that the actual stock of the Farm was wrongly reported by the Superintendent as missing items with the intention to harass the appellant. The appellant was held liable for the shortage of the articles and it was ordered to recover an amount of Rs. 1,6,040 from the appellant. The Farm Superintendent is also equally responsible for the shortage of articles, if any. The appellant filed an appeal before the Government, but the Government rejecting his appeal ordered to recover the amount which was reduced to be Rs. 1.4,788 from the D.G.R.G. He mired from service on 30th November 1990. After retirement of the appellant, the first respondent issued a new order against him fixing additional liabilities of Rs. 11,902 towards the value of the articles found missing from the Farm during 1981. No enquiry was conducted before issuing that notice. No notice was also issued to him. Hence, he states that Ext. P-2 order directing to recover Rs. 14,788 from his D.G.R.G. is liable to be quashed. He has also received Ext. P-14 liability certificate fixing his total liability at Rs. 27,055. The appellant filed the above Original Petition to quash Exts. P-3, P-13 and P-14. The learned Single Judge confirmed Ext. P-3 Memo of Charges, but set aside Exts. P-13 and P-14 on the ground that they are illegal and violative of the provisions contained in part III of the Kerala Service Rules. 27,055. The appellant filed the above Original Petition to quash Exts. P-3, P-13 and P-14. The learned Single Judge confirmed Ext. P-3 Memo of Charges, but set aside Exts. P-13 and P-14 on the ground that they are illegal and violative of the provisions contained in part III of the Kerala Service Rules. The court had directed the respondents to refix the liability of the petitioner, after giving fresh notice to the petitioner within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. 4. Aggrieved by the above Judgment the petitioner has filed this writ appeal. 5. The appellant challenges Exts. P-3, P-13 and P-14 on various grounds. It is submitted that Ext. P-3 memo was issued eight years after the alleged incident. It is alleged in the memo that while working as Junior Agricultural Officer, he left Neriyamangalam Farm on 6th February 1981 without handing over the charge of stock and stores and as such lie was found responsible for the shortage of articles valuing Rs. 16,889.02. The appellant contended that the allegations in the memo of charges are baseless. He had submitted a detailed statement of defence. He states that the Farm Superintendent was personally inimical towards him and hence he had noted several articles present in the stores as missing items. It is also stated that the Farm Superintendent destroyed some articles. The appellant examined witnesses to prove that there was destruction of articles. The appellant admits that he went to Neriyamangalam Farm and traced out 40 items which were shown in the list prepared by the Superintendent. Ext. P-2 is the letter issued to him. That shows that he was aware of the complaint of the Farm Superintendent about shortage of articles. He admits in Ext. P-4 letter that on 16th April 1981 i. e., after two months of his transfer, the Farm Superintendent instructed him to hand over charge of stock and stores. A list of articles alleged to be missing were also attached to the letter. The appellant wanted a list of articles taken over charge by Joy Peter, bis successor, but not given. He admits that he went to Neriyamangalam on 30th June 1981 and traced out 40 items shown in the list of articles. Thus, it is evident, that he was aware of the missing items. The appellant wanted a list of articles taken over charge by Joy Peter, bis successor, but not given. He admits that he went to Neriyamangalam on 30th June 1981 and traced out 40 items shown in the list of articles. Thus, it is evident, that he was aware of the missing items. It is true that memo of charges was issued only after 8 years. The enquiry report fixed his liability at Rs. 16,889.02. In appeal against the said liability, the Government reduced the amount to Rs. 14,788 as per Ext. P-12. The long delay in issuing memo, according to the first respondent, is due to the non cooperation of the appellant. If the list of missing items was prepared, the first respondent could have served the memo in 1981 itself, but it was served only in 1989. The delay is not properly explained. 6. It is submitted that under S.303A of the Kerala Financial Code, whenever there is reason to suspect that the Government have sustained loss on account of negligence on the part of Government servant, the head of office should investigate the matter fully without avoidable delay. Since there is a delay of 8 years, it is submitted that the proceedings are vitiated. Relying on the decision in A. P. Augustine v. Superintendent of Post Offices 1984 KLT 226 , it is submitted that no fair and effective enquiry can be conducted unless it commences within a reasonable time after the incident. But the Supreme Court in State of A. P. v. N. Radhakishan AIR 1998 SC 1833 held: ''In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations." 7. The list of articles missing was given to the appellant in 1981 itself and the appellant was given sufficient time to file his written statement of defence. It is the responsibility of the Store Keeper to hand over charge of articles. The enquiry report shows that the appellant's successor assumed charge only on 27th February 1981. On 11th February 1981 the appellant was present in the office. He could have handed over charge of stores on that day. He had not done so. The allegation that the Farm Superintendent was inimical towards him cannot be said to be true, as he himself had entrusted the key to him before he left the station. The enquiry report, Ext. P-6, goes to show that the list of articles handed over to Krishnan Nair at the time of taking charge and the list of articles when assumed charge by his successor, annual physical verification report as on 31st March 1980 and 31st March 1981, relevant entries in the stock registers etc., were verified by him from 8th to 18th of October, 1986. He was heard in person on 21st December 1989. Witnesses were examined. He was given further opportunity to trace out the articles with the help of the present Agricultural Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any prejudice caused to the appellant so far as the first item of liability is concerned. As the liability is fixed by the Government at Rs. 14,788 the respondents cannot realise Rs. 15,963 as shown in Ext. P-3. 8. Regarding the second and third part of liability, the learned Single Judge held that Exts. P-13 and P-14 are illegal. But the first respondent was directed to refix the liability of the appellant after giving fresh notice to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged this finding. The incident happened in 1981. The first memo of charges was given after 8 years. P-13 and P-14 are illegal. But the first respondent was directed to refix the liability of the appellant after giving fresh notice to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged this finding. The incident happened in 1981. The first memo of charges was given after 8 years. At that time, the above items were not mentioned in the memo of charges. They waited the petitioner to retire on 30th November, 1990 and after retirement, on 16th October 1991, the additional liability certificate was issued and the entire amount due according to him was recovered from the pensionary benefits. The appellant was not given any show cause notice. He was not asked to furnish his explanation. 10 years after the incident, the additional liability was fixed. The appellant may not be able to defend his case as the articles alleged to have been put in the stores may not be there. At this distance of time, it would be humanly impossible for the appellant to defend himself effectively by adducing evidence in regard to matters alleged to have occurred 17 years ago and in respect of which he has not yet been informed of the particulars, charges and the nature of evidence relied on against him. His own witness may have disappeared or their memory faded. Whatever evidence that he could have adduced in his favour had the enquiry commenced promptly would in ail probability have by now vanished. No fair and effective enquiry can be conducted unless it commences within a reasonable time after the incident. To call upon the appellant to defend himself at this distance of time is to put him at considerable disadvantage and thus deny him the benefit of natural justice. Hence the direction that a fresh enquiry has to be conducted will only cause prejudice to the appellant. Therefore, we feel that there is no warrant to issue such a direction to conduct a fresh enquiry. The said direction has to be set aside and hence We do so. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The liability due to the respondents from the appellant is fixed at Rs. 14,788. The first respondent is directed to refund Rs. The said direction has to be set aside and hence We do so. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The liability due to the respondents from the appellant is fixed at Rs. 14,788. The first respondent is directed to refund Rs. l1,092.09 to the appellant which was recovered from his D.C.R.G. As the amount was illegally recovered, he is allowed to realise 12 per cent interest from the date of recovery of the amount till date of payment. No costs.