Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dt. 12.04.2001 Annexure-8 passed by the Director and Ex-Officio Dy. Secretary, Government Department of Panchayti Raj, Jaipur. 2. According to the facts narrated in the writ petition, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Jawla, Tehsil Parabatsar, District Nagaur in the month of Janauary, 1965 and remained as Sarpanch till December, 1997. According to the petitioner, in the meeting of Gram Panchayat which was said to be held on 31.01.1965, certain resolutions were passed unanimousl by the Members of Gram Panchayat. Against which the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 lodged a false complaint against the petitioner on concocted grounds before the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur. 3. While issuing charge-sheet on 21.02.1978, explanation was sought from the petitioner. The petitioner gave his detailed explanation and reply to the charges leveled against him to the respondent Panchayati Raj Department on 20.03.1978. 4. The respondent Panchayati Raj Deaprtment has issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 07.04.1978 along with the enquiry report conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Parbatsar to the effect that why the finding be not recorded under the provisions of Section 17 (4) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 (for short “the Act of 1953” hereinafter). In Pursuance of the said show-cause notice, the petitioner appeared on the given date i.e. on 24.05.1978 before the Panchayati Raj Department at Jaipur and filed reply along with requisite documents in support of his stand. After filing reply, no order whatsoever has been passed on the show-cause notice dt. 07.04.1978. However, all of a sudden the respondent Department again issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 10.01.2001 asking petitioner to show-cause as to why the finding be not recorded against him under proviso to Section 38(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act of 1994” hereinafter) for the same charges after 33 years. 07.04.1978. However, all of a sudden the respondent Department again issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 10.01.2001 asking petitioner to show-cause as to why the finding be not recorded against him under proviso to Section 38(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short “the Act of 1994” hereinafter) for the same charges after 33 years. It is very strange that earlier, the Act of 1953 was in force and show-cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why the finding be not recorded under the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act of 1953 and for the same allegations, after the amendment of the Act, a fresh show-cause notice was given to the petitioner after 33 years as to why the finding be not recorded against him under proviso to Section 38(1)(b) of the Act of 1994. 5. In pursuance of the second notice issued on 10.01.2001 and received by the petitioner on 10.02.2001, he filed his reply on 15.02.2001 through registered A.D. Post and he has placed on record the reply as well as postal receipt and registered A.D. as Annexure-7 and according to the petitioner vide impugned order dt. 12.04.2001, the finding against the petitioner under proviso to Section 38 (b) of the Act of 1994 wre reocrded. In the order, it is observed that though service of show-cause notice is effected but no reply had been filed within 15 days. The petitioner is challenging the said order dt. 12.04.2001 on the ground that the respondent Panchayati Raj Department has committed an error and illegality while passing order Annexure-8 dt. 12.04.2001 for the charges related to the year 1978. It is also submitted that in pursuance of the show cause notice dt. 10.01.2001, the petitioner filed reply through registered post. He has placed on record reply as well as postal receipt and registered AD which clearly shows that though reply was given by the petitioner but without considering the reply, the respondent No. 2 has passed order impugned while recording the finding against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel also submitted that according to the facts narrated above, it is clear that initially, upon the complaint made by the respondent Nos. 6. Learned counsel also submitted that according to the facts narrated above, it is clear that initially, upon the complaint made by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, a show-cause notice was issued in the year 1978 and for near about 33 years, no final order was passed in the said enquiry and after such long period, again a fresh notice was issued which is totally against the priciple of natural justice. Likewise, according to the petitioner, all the allegations leveled against him were refuted way of filing reply Annexure-7 to the fresh show-cause notice dt. 10.01.2001 but while observing the impugned order that no reply has been filed, the impugned order dt. 12.04.2001 has been passed which is totally illegal and against the principle of natural justice. 7. The respondents have initiated a fresh proceeding against the petitioner on the same allegations upon which the show-cause notice was given in the year 1978 and same was replied by him 33 years back. Therefore, it is apparently clear that due to inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has been harassed malafidely by the respondents. It is also submitted by counsel for the petitioner that due to the political rivalry, the fresh show-cause notice was issued at the behest of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, therefore, impugned order dt. 12.04.2001 Annexure-8 has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. It is also submitted that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have succeeded by getting impugned order passed as per their desire after 33 years. In these circumstances, since the order impugned has been passed ignoring the reply filed by the petitioner in which he has refuted all the charges leveled against him, as such the order dt. 12.04.2001 Annexure-8 passed by respondent No. 2 deserves to be set-aside. 8. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that in this case, the notices were issued to the State as well as other respondents on 23.07.2001 but till today, no reply has been filed by the respondents, therefore, the pleadings of the writ petition which is not rebutted by the respondents, hence, deserves to be accepted in toto. 9. Per contra, the Dy.Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer and stated that in the enquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be proved, therefore, order impugned does not required any interference by this Court. 9. Per contra, the Dy.Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer and stated that in the enquiry, the charges leveled against the petitioner were found to be proved, therefore, order impugned does not required any interference by this Court. 10. I have perused the entire record of the case and also considered the pleadings of this case. Admittedly, the earlier proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while issuing charge-sheet on 21.02.1978 and at that time, reply was filed by the petitioner but no action has been taken by the respondent Department near about 33 years and all of a sudden without assigning any reason for the same charges, a fesh show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and enquiry report was sent to the petitioner and thereafter, the order impugned dt. 12.04.2001 has been passed for alleged misconduct of the year 1977. It is strange that the sword of action against the petitioner was hanging upon the head of petitioner for near about 33 years but no action was taken by the respondents for such a long period. 11. Now, the impugned order has been passed ignoring reply filed by the petitioner. There is no justification for passing impugned order after 33 years. In these circumstances, the order dt. 12.04.2004 which is passed in violation of principle of natural justice and flagrant abuse of law and denying the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner does not stand before eye of law. It is also required to be observed that this is totally inaction on the part of the respondents that they did not finalize the enquiry against the petitioner for 33 years and now impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. In these circumtances, the respondent’s action is totally unconstitutinal and against the basic principle of law. 12. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dt. 12.04.2001 (Annexure-8) is set-aisde. There shall be no order as to costs. * * * * *