JUDGMENT 1. - Prayer to quash the enquiry proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control of Appeal) Rules (for short the Rules of 1958) has been made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. 2. Contextual facts depict that the petitioner in 1976, was posted as Junior Engineer in Lift Sub Division J of Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna. In respect of certain irregularities alleged to have been occurred in 1976 a charge sheet dated October 26, 1995 was served upon the petitioner by the Department of Personnel (for short the DOP). Learned counsel appearing for the respondents failed to explain satisfactorily as to why the charge sheet was filed (sic served ?) after a delay of 19 years. No reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents despite several opportunities were granted to them. A preliminary objection however was raised orally that the writ petition challenging the issue of charge sheet without submitting any reply to the charge sheet is premature. Reliance was placed on U.O.I. v. Ashok Kackerl 1995(7) SLR 430 . 3. Though the writ petition has not been exactly worded in terms of filing of reply to the charge sheet, yet Mr. Bajrang lal Sharma made a statement at Bar that reply to the charge sheet has already been filed by the petitioner. 4. A close look at the charge sheet dated October 26, (Annexure- 2) demonstrates that as many as five charges were levelled against the petitioner and all the charges relate to the irregularities pertaining to year 1976. Therefore the question that arises for my consideration is-Will it be fair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with after inordinate delay of 19 years. 5. State of M.P. v. Bani Singh AIR 1990 SC 1308 , was the case wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus- "The irregularities which were subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the year 1975-77. It is not case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities if any one come 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. It is not case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities if any one come 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. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and were also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage." 6. It is well settled that if unreasonable delay is occasioned in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, it may be a ground to quash the same. 7. As already stated the respondents did not file any reply to the writ petition and they have failed to provide any explanation in respect of inordinate delay of 19 years in initiating the enquiry proceedings. Undoubtedly, unreasonable delay is occasioned in the instant case in imitation of the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and it will be unfair to permit such a proceeding to be proceeded with. 8. Ratio of U.O.I. v. Ashok Kacker (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The petitioner has approached this court on April 24, 1997 i.e. after about 18 months of filing the charge sheet. That apart, reply of the charge sheet was also filed, as counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar. Thus the instant petition cannot be termed as premature. 9. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, it appears that the initiation of the enquiry proceedings after inordinate delay of 19 years was unreasonable and arbitrary. Therefore entire enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 as well as the charge sheet dated October 26, 1995 are consequently quashed. If the decision in respect of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was taken and kept in sealed cover as per directions of this court, the same may be declared now and it shall be effective from the date the petitioner was entitled to it. 10. The writ petition stands allowed as indicated above. Costs easy.Petition allowed. *******