JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was appointed as Engineering Subordinate (Civil) in Irrigation Department on 27-7-1966, which post was redesignated as Junior Engineer (Civil) (Diploma Holder) later on. The petitioner's case is that he has become due for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in view of his seniority in the cadre of Junior Engineers at S. No. 19 in the seniority list but departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 has been initiated against him and, therefore, he is not likely to he considered for promotion to the post of A.EN. It has been averred that a charge-sheet dated 27-8-1994 mentioning two misconducts under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served on the him on 31-12-1994 - one charge for the excess payment made to one Puran Chand, contractor in 1978 for the construction of a ramp; and the second charge for the payment made to the contractor on the basis of the measurements recorded by him. As to first charge it has been stated that the ramp was constructed for the use of the department and was entered in the measurement hook and the same was verified by the competent authorities and even the amount was subsequently recovered from the contractor on 16-6-1985 vide voucher No. 35. For the second charge it has been stated that the measurements were verified by the Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer and nobody raised objection and in the final bill the excess amount was adjusted and the audit objection was also dropped. It has been stated that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is highly belated and at the same time there is no substance in both the charge. It has been prayed that the charge-sheet he quashed and the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the posts of A.EN. (Civil). 2. In the reply it has been averred that the petitioner has an opportunity to submit his explanation to the charges framed against him in the enquiry and he has no legal right to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 3. (Civil). 2. In the reply it has been averred that the petitioner has an opportunity to submit his explanation to the charges framed against him in the enquiry and he has no legal right to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 3. In the rejoinder it has been averred that as per the administrative instructions the preliminary enquiry should be completed within three months and the departmental enquiry should not be delayed but in the instant case the enquiry has been initiated after the expiry of 16 years and thus the petitioner's legal rights are infringed. 4. Mr. Singhvi vehemently contended that in the reply it has not been denied that the audit objection regarding the overpayment to the contractor has been dropped and that the amount paid for the construction of the ramp has been recovered from the contractor and, therefore, the averments in the writ petition should be presumed to be correct. He canvassed that the respondents did not care to charge sheet the petitioner for about 16 years and now in order to deprive him of his right of consideration for promotion to the higher post disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him. Relying on the cases of State of M.P. v. Bani Singh, AIR 1990 SC 1308 : (1990 Lab IC 1488) , he submitted that the charge-sheet he quashed. 5. As against this Mr. Dave contended that the charge-sheet should not he quashed on the mere ground of delay as has been held by this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Gulab Chand (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 23 of 1995) decided on 17-7-1995 . 6. I have carefully considered the above arguments. As already stated, these facts have not been denied in the reply that the amount involved in both the charges framed against the petitioner has been recovered from the contractors and even audit para made on the irregularity has been dropped. It is further to be noticed that the charges do not pertain to misappropriation of some amount by the petitioner. It has also not been stated in the charges that the petitioner was hand in glove with the contractors and he had recorded wrong measurements with ulterior motive. It is evident that the charges are with regard to the irregularities committed .by the petitioner in 1978. 7. It has also not been stated in the charges that the petitioner was hand in glove with the contractors and he had recorded wrong measurements with ulterior motive. It is evident that the charges are with regard to the irregularities committed .by the petitioner in 1978. 7. No reason, whatsoever, has been assigned by the respondents in the reply as to why the disciplinary proceedings were not initiated during the long interval of 16 years. In the case of State of M.P. v. Bani Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the order, quashing the charge-sheet passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal observing as follows (at page 1489 of Lah IC):- "The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have been taken place between the year 1975-77. 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." 8. In the instant case, also the misconduct is said to be of the year 1978. It is not the case of the respondents that they were not aware of the said irregularities and came to know about the same in 1994. There is thus no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing charge memo. On the basis of the ratio of the case of Bani Singh (supra), it can certainly be said that it will he unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage when the petitioner has become due to he promoted to the higher post. 9. The facts of the Division Bench case of State of Rajasthan v. Gulabchand (supra) relied on by the respondents were very different. 9. The facts of the Division Bench case of State of Rajasthan v. Gulabchand (supra) relied on by the respondents were very different. In that case, the petitioner who was it member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service and posted as S.D.O. was charge-sheeted in 1991 that he had made various allotments of land under the provisions of ceiling laws in contravention of rules even without obtaining the permission of the Collector or the Government. It is obvious that the charge against the petitioner in that case were of serious nature. 10. On the point of delay the Division Bench relied on the case of Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Faizahad v. Sachindra Nath Pandey, (1995) 3 SCC 134 , wherein their Lordships did not think it proper to quash the departmental proceedings as the charges were very serious i.e. misappropriation and absconding along with official record. 11. The legal position which emerges out of the Court decisions is that where the charges are of very serious nature like misappropriation and illegal allotment of land, it is not proper to quash the departmental proceedings on the ground of delay. As already pointed out, the charges against the petitioner are not of serious nature and he has been charged for the irregularities committed by him. It is also obvious that no financial loss was caused to the respondents because of those irregularities. 12. In the case of State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal. (1995) 2 SCC 570 , their Lordships have considered the effect of delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings. Para 9 of the judgment deserves to he reproduced here-under : "Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot he initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not he fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the Court may well interfere and quash the charges. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the Court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to he interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the Court has to weigh the facts appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the Court has to indulge in a process of balancing." 13. Though in that case, the Apex Court after considering facts for and against the respondent tot that case) and applying the balancing process, held that the quashing of the charges was not warranted, yet the observations quoted above are the guiding principles to he followed in such matters. 14. It is relevant to state that the charges against the respondent in the case before the Supreme Court were that he was Superintendent of the Nabha High Security Jail upto 26-12-1986 and on the night intervening 1/2-1-87 certain inmates, said to he terrorist, made an attempt to escape and even six terrorist made good their escape and it was found that the incident was the cumulative result of lax administration, indiscipline and lack of control over the prisoners and during the respondent's tenure special concessions were given against the rules/ instructions and some days back some dangerous prisoners were transferred from most safe barracks to less safe barracks and also that barracks close register was not maintained. 15. In the instant case, as already stated, the departmental proceedings have been initiated after 16 years and it is not the case of the respondents that irregularities were not discovered prior to 1994. 15. In the instant case, as already stated, the departmental proceedings have been initiated after 16 years and it is not the case of the respondents that irregularities were not discovered prior to 1994. The facts in favour of the petitioner are that the respondents have not suffered financial loss because of the irregularities allegd to have been committed by the petitioner and the amount which was over -paid to the contractor in the running bill was adjusted against the final bill and even the audit para pointing out the irregularity has been dropped by the Accountant General of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The adverse circumstances against the petitioner are that he had recommended the payment for the construction of the ramp to the contractor whereas it was the duty of the contractor to construct the ramp and that there was some mistake in the measurements of the work done during the running bills. 16. Following the dictum laid down in the cases of State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal (supra) and State of M.P. v. Bani Singh (supra), I am of the considered view that in the instant case the departmental proceedings should be quashed on the ground of delay of 16 years. 17. Consequently the writ petition succeeds. The charge-sheet dated 27-9-1994 is quashed.Petition allowed. *******