JUDGEMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. The petitioner who was working as a Nazir posted with the Block Development Officer at Rajgir was faced with the departmental proceeding for allegedly embezzling about Rs. 1,34,000/-. The concerned Block Development Officer was also put under suspension and was facing a departmental proceeding. 2. The departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 21.1.1981. A criminal case was also filed against the petitioner under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner came to this Court in the year 1994 vide C.W.J.C. No. 3834 of 1994 which was disposed of on 21.2.1995. The prayer of the petitioner then as it is today is that the departmental proceeding which was initiated in the year 1981 should be quashed on the ground of delay as also on the ground that no one should be permitted to suffer for an indefinite period. This Court had directed the department to conclude the proceeding within six months. 3. From the pleadings in the writ application and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the department it appears that till this date the proceedings have not been concluded. The State Counsel submits that there is a letter addressed by the Collector, Nalanda to the Secretary Administrative and Personnel Reforms De- partment wherein the Collector has suggested that the retiral dues of the petitioner should be withheld in view of the fact that the departmental proceeding is still pending. By Annexurer-B/3 letter no. 14 of 1997, the Government has given permission to withhold the retiral dues of the petitioner. The result is that the petitioner who retired on 31.3.1995 is not getting the final pension and other legal dues and also facing harassment due to the pendency of the proceeding. 4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing the judgment passed in G.R. Case No. 1696 by the Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Nalanda dated 27.5-2005 by which the petitioner has been acquitted for the charges under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. This Court finds that despite orders of this Court issued specifically to the State Government to conclude the proceeding within six months, the proceeding is still pending. What is more the petitioner was permitted to work for about 15 years even after the initiation of his proceeding. The petitioner apparently worked without any complaint from the higher officers for the rest of his service period. What is more the petitioner was permitted to work for about 15 years even after the initiation of his proceeding. The petitioner apparently worked without any complaint from the higher officers for the rest of his service period. It would indeed be traversity (sictravesty ?) of justice to allow the department in question to continue with the departmental proceedings initiated on 21.1.1981 which remain undisposed till today. 6. In the result the Collector, Nalanda is directed to pass an appropriate order dropping the proceeding against the petitioner which was initiated vide memo no. 65 dated 21.1.1981. The petitioner would be entitled to be paid his legal dues expeditiously. 7. It is clarified that this order is being passed on the facts available on record. 8. This writ application is thus allowed.