V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed on 20. 7. 1960 as an overseer in the Public Works Department. He was confirmed in 1974. The post of overseer was redesignated as Junior Engineer. He was suspended on 31. 7. 1975. He challenged the suspension order by Claim Petition No. 1040 (1) of 1976 before U. P. Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal on 4. 9. 1976 stayed operation of the suspension order after hearing, the respondents as it was admitted before the Tribunal that no steps had been taken against petitioner after suspension nor any charge-sheet was framed. The tribunal held that the suspension order, in the circumstances, amounted to punishment. But it permitted inquiry to proceed expeditiously. On 27. 6. 1981 the Superintending Engineer appointed shri A. P. Garg as Inquiry officer who sent a D. O. on 29. 12. 1983 to the Executive Engineer. Public Works Provincial Division. Varanasl. for framing charge-sheet against the petitioner. Reminder was sent by him on 6. 1. 1984 The Executive Engineer framed nine charges against petitioner. It appears to have been received by the inquiry officer after 6. 1. 1984. He wrote on 12. 1. 1984 to the executive engineer that the charges were very old and documents were not available from which it could be verified, therefore, he may appear with all papers on 24. 1. 1984. The Executive Engineer on 3. 7. 1984 sent his comments on all the charges. The inquiry officer was changed and one Shri N. N. Srivastava was appointed as inquiry officer. He framed only two charges on 16. 6. 1988 against the petitioner. He was also changed and one Shri K. D. Agarwal, was appointed as Inquiry officer. The petitioner made an application on 30. 6. 1988 requesting that copies of documents be provided to him so that he may reply to the charges. No order was passed on the application. However, the petitioner was permitted to obtain copies of the document from the executive engineer, Varanasi. Some documents were provided to the petitioner. He on 8. 2. 1990 again made a request for supply of remaining copies of documents. But it was not supplied. The petitioner on insistence of the inquiry officer submitted his reply to the charges on 13. 2. 1990. According to the petitioner, even after submission of his reply to the charges, the Inquiry proceedings did not proceed. He on 8. 2. 1990 again made a request for supply of remaining copies of documents. But it was not supplied. The petitioner on insistence of the inquiry officer submitted his reply to the charges on 13. 2. 1990. According to the petitioner, even after submission of his reply to the charges, the Inquiry proceedings did not proceed. In August, 1992 he received another letter, from fourth Inquiry officer Shri Suresh Chandra Misra superintending engineer, to appear before him on 21. 8. 1992. In paragraph 33 of the writ petition, it has categorically been stated that after submission of petitioners reply to the charges, no date was fixed by the respondents for completion of the departmental proceedings. The petitioner has retired, in the meantime, on 30. 6,1998. The petitioner seeks quashing of the departmental disciplinary proceedings pending since 1975, for payment of arrears of his salary, promotion and other benefits. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri B. P. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. N. Srivastava learned standing counsel for the respondents. Inspite of stop order dated 19. 7. 1999, the respondents have not filed counter-affidavit. Therefore, this petition is being taken up for final disposal. The assertions made by the petitioner in the writ petition are uncontroverted. Therefore, in view of the Apex Court judgment, the facts stated in the writ petition have to be accepted as correct. The Apex Court in the case of Bir Singh Chauhan v. State of Haryana and others, 1997 (2) SCC (Labour and Service) 1447, has held as under : "we wanted to examine the record to ascertain whether there is any substantial case against the appellant. The respondents have neither filed counter nor produced the record. Under these circumstances, we are constrained to accept the case of the appellant that he is entitled to be considered for promotion under the Rules. We direct the Government to consider his case for promotion on the basis of his service record within four months from the receipt of this order. While doing so. the Government will exclude the material relating to his inspection report. " ( 3 ) A division bench of this Court In M/s. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector, Kanpur and others. 1999 (82) FLR 709 . While doing so. the Government will exclude the material relating to his inspection report. " ( 3 ) A division bench of this Court In M/s. J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. Collector, Kanpur and others. 1999 (82) FLR 709 . has held as under : "in the absence of counter-affidavit, the Court is left with no choice but to accept the averments made in the petition to be correct. " ( 4 ) THE question is whether the disciplinary proceedings as a result of long delay are liable to be quashed. The disciplinary proceedings started In 1972 could not be completed even after more than twenty years. Such long delay for which the delinquent is not responsible has not been accepted as valid Justification -for keeping the proceedings pending. The Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, 1998 (4) SCC 154 . has held as under : "it is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be determined each case has to be examined on the fact and Circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the Court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary ioss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In Considering whether the 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 the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. 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 the 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 their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats Justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charges 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. " ( 5 ) FROM the facts stated, it is clear that departmental proceedings have remained pending for more than twenty years and they have not been concluded even though the petitioner retired in 1998. Four inquiry officers were changed during this period. The first charge-sheet containing nine charges was itself framed after thirteen years in 1984 but it was not issued. And when the inquiry officer expressed his doubt, he was replaced. The new inquiry officer took four years to frame fresh charges. The number came down to two from nine. This probably resulted in change of inquiry officer again. When petitioner filed his reply in 1990 asserting that the ambit of objections fixed the responsibilities of these charges on other officers, the Inquiry bogged down and the petitioner retired In 1998. In 1983 the petitioner was granted time scale. It was cancelled in the year 1984 due to these proceedings. The order of cancellation was set aside by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2346 of 1984 on 18. 4. 1990. Since the respondents could not explain the long delay of more than 20 years In failure to finalise the proceedings, prejudice is writ large on the face of it as held by the Apex Court. The harassment. mental torture, humiliation and financial loss due to prolonged proceedings cannot be comprehended. The tribunal while staying operation of the suspension order had permitted the department to complete proceedings expeditiously. It was in 1976. And the department kept changing inquiry officers only. The harassment. mental torture, humiliation and financial loss due to prolonged proceedings cannot be comprehended. The tribunal while staying operation of the suspension order had permitted the department to complete proceedings expeditiously. It was in 1976. And the department kept changing inquiry officers only. The first inquiry officer has clearly observed that the charges were old and their verification from records was not being made out. He had mentioned about each charge and pointed out the difficulty n proceeding with them. It probably resulted in his replacement. In any case the entire proceedings appear to be an abuse of the process. And above all the respondents have not cared to file counter-affidavit and explain the abnormal delay. Therefore, it can safely be assumed that they are unable to defend their conduct. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the facts. It is more than clear that it would not be in interest of clean and honest administration to continue the disciplinary proceedings any further. It would be ignoring the unreasonable attitude of respondents to punish an employee without proving the charge. If such conduct of the employer of a government department is overlooked, it would lead to arbitrariness. The right of the petitioner for conclusion of disciplinary proceedings expeditiously have been seriously affected. The result of pendency of these proceedings has been constant suffering, physical. mental and financial, denying him promotion and other benefits which would have been available to him. Since the delay in forming the first charge-sheet after thirteen years or even the second charge-sheet after four years was not due to petitioner. The entire proceedings as held by the Apex Court were vitiated. In absence of any explanation by the respondents, the prejudice is writ large on the face of the proceedings. If the conduct of the petitioner and department are compared, the blame squarely falls on the department. ( 7 ) THOUGH the writ petition has been pending before this Court for about seven years but the respondents did not care to file any counter-affidavit despite stop order passed by this Court. There appears no valid reason for not completing the proceedings except that the department knew it that it could not prove the charges framed against the petitioner. The department did not have the least regard for the predicament of the petitioner and has been changing inquiry officers framing charges and then doing nothing. There appears no valid reason for not completing the proceedings except that the department knew it that it could not prove the charges framed against the petitioner. The department did not have the least regard for the predicament of the petitioner and has been changing inquiry officers framing charges and then doing nothing. They have in fact succeeded in punishing the petitioner without proving any charge against the petitioner without any justification. The petitioner has suffered for the laches of the respondents. His entire carrier has been ruined due to callous approach of the department. The disciplinary proceedings in the circumstances have been rendered arbitrary and are liable to be quashed. ( 8 ) THUS, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to notional promotion. The respondents are directed to calculate the entire arrears of salary in accordance with the pay scale which have been revised from time to time giving him all consequential benefits of service. His post retiral benefits shall also be calculated on revised pay scale and notional promotion. For the untold suffering, the petitioner shall be paid 12% interest on the amount calculated by the department on pre and post retiral benefits of the petitioner. The aforesaid directions shall be complied by the respondents within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is served on the respondent No. 2. ( 9 ) PETITIONER shall be entitled to his costs. .