JUDGMENT By The Court—In the instant petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet dated 11.8.1999, order dated 25.2.2006 issued by respondent No. 1 appointing inquiry officer and notice dated 28/29.3.2006 issued by respondent No. 3 fixing the date of inquiry. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the charge sheet was issued on 11.8.1999, which was replied by the petitioner on 23.8.1999. Thereafter no proceeding took place and after lapse of almost seven years now respondent No. 1 has passed order dated 25.2.2006 appointing Inquiry Officer and the said Inquiry Officer has issued notices dated 28/29.3.2006 fixing date for oral inquiry for preliminary hearing. It is contended that the aforesaid inordinate delay in disciplinary proceeding vitiate entire proceeding and reliance is placed on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh and Bani Singh and another, 1990 (60) FLR 824. 4. Shri S.M. Dayal, learned coursel for the respondents, however, submitted that some matter was being inquired by CBI and certain records were taken by them on account whereof inquiry proceeding could not be held for some time and now after the return of record by CBI, the inquiry proceeding has again put in motion by appointing Inquiry Officer and commencing oral inquiry against the petitioner. 5. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after issuance of charge sheet in 1999 and submission of reply by the petitioner although the inquiry proceeding were not finalized and he was not exonerated yet he did not challenge the proceeding on the ground of delay. It is only when the proceedings have now been started that he has approached this Court challenging the same only on the ground or inordinate delay. Nowhere the petitioner has stated in the writ petition as to how he would suffer any prejudice due to delay in the proceeding and the only averment, which the petitioner has made in the writ petition is that he is likely to suffer great hardship and problem. The petitioner has chosen not to explain such hardship and problem at all. Nowhere the petitioner has stated in the writ petition as to how he would suffer any prejudice due to delay in the proceeding and the only averment, which the petitioner has made in the writ petition is that he is likely to suffer great hardship and problem. The petitioner has chosen not to explain such hardship and problem at all. In the case of Bani Singh (supra) the charge-sheet dated 22.4.1987 was challenged, which contains certain allegations in respect of incident took place in 1975-76 when Shri Bani Singh, an IAS officer of 1964 batch was working as Commandant 14th Battalion, SAF Gwalior. It was admitted fact between the parties that after 1975-76 incident, Shri Bani Singh was promoted in selection grade in the year 1978 and super time scale in the year 1981. The charge sheet was quashed by the Tribunal on the ground of delay of twelve years and the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal observing that it was in the knowledge of the department that certain irregularities were committed by the officer concerned in the year 1975-77 and no reason was explained as to why they took almost twelve years time in issuing the charge sheet. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay in issuance of charge sheet the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the order quashing inquiry proceeding initiated after inordinate delay of twelve years. 6. In the present case, the charge sheet contains allegations of 1997 alleging serious financial irregularities. Reason for delay has also been informed by the learned Counsel for the respondent, which has not been disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the delay in the departmental proceeding is unreasonable or without any proper explanation. Petitioner has also riot shown what prejudice has caused to him by such delay. There is no allegation of deliberate or intended delay on the part of the respondents. Even the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court only when the oral inquiry has commenced shows that he has not approached with clean hands. 7. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, it is accordingly dismissed. We, however, observe that since the matter is already pending since 1999, the respondents shall conclude the inquiry proceedings expeditiously subject to co-operation of the petitioner. Petition Dismissed. ———