Judgment : The petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the charge memo issued to him by the fourth respondent dated 27. 1991 and for quashing the same and consequently directing the respondents 1 to 3 to allow all consequential benefits to the petitioner with retrospective effect. 2. This is a classic case where an employee of the Government is put to great mental hardship for more than two decades for the lethargic attitude of the first respondent in not passing the final order on the disciplinary proceeding. The facts lead to the filing of the present writ petition would be shocking to the conscious of everybody. 3. The short facts which lead to the filing of the present writ petition is set our hereunder; .(i) On 27. 1991, Charge memo has been issued to the petitioner by the fourth respondent. .(ii) Thereafter, an enquiry officer has been appointed who conducted the enquiry and submitted the report finding that the charges are proved in the year 1998. (iii) On 8. 2008, show cause notice has been issued by the first respondent seeking explanation from the petitioner by enclosing the finding of the enquiry officer. .(iv) On 10. 2000, the petitioner offered his explanation for the said show cause notice. .(v) But, till date no final orders have been passed by the Government. Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court by challenging the said charge memo dated 27. 1991. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein it has been pointed out that the charge memo against the petitioner is that he along with nine other persons issued paddy seeds at subsidy price to bogus and fictitious persons under the Drought Relief Scheme during the year 1983 and charges have been framed against the petitioner along with nine others by the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings dated 27. 1991. The enquiry had been completed and the Enquiry Officer has given finding on 16. 1998 to the Government, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner through the Director of Agriculture, Chennai and Joint Director of Agriculture, Tirunelveli. The petitioner offered his explanation and the Government has to pass final orders. Since the department proceeding is pending against the petitioner, the petitioner could not be promoted. 5. 1998 to the Government, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner through the Director of Agriculture, Chennai and Joint Director of Agriculture, Tirunelveli. The petitioner offered his explanation and the Government has to pass final orders. Since the department proceeding is pending against the petitioner, the petitioner could not be promoted. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that the charges against the petitioner are relating to an incident of the year 1983 for which, after eight years charge memo has been issued in the year 1991, the enquiry was conducted and completed in the year 1998, thereafter show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner seeking an explanation from him enclosing the enquiry report on 8. 2000, for which the petitioner had submitted the reply on 10. 2000 and in spite of the same, no final order has been passed till date and hence the petitioner had approached this court by filing the present writ petition. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the first respondent why final order has not been passed even after the expiry of eight years from the date of offering explanation to the show cause notice dated 8. 2000. Thus, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is inordinate delay in passing the final orders. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the enquiry was already completed in the year 1998 and the report of the enquiry officer had been sent to the first respondents in the year 1998, and thereafter, show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner in the year 2000 and the petitioner had offered his explanation on 10. 2000 and the matter is still pending consideration by the Government and the Government will pass appropriate orders within a short span of time. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 8. As stated already by me, this is a classic example of unexplained inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in passing the final orders on the charges of an employee. For the incident of the year 1983, after eight years, charge memo had been issued to the petitioner along with nine others. 8. As stated already by me, this is a classic example of unexplained inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in passing the final orders on the charges of an employee. For the incident of the year 1983, after eight years, charge memo had been issued to the petitioner along with nine others. The charge against the petitioner is that using his official position and authority, while working as Assistant Agricultural Officer in the year 1983, he along with other employees of the department by forging the signatures, recommended certain persons for the issue of paddy seed at a subsidy price under the Drought Relief Scheme and created bogus bills as if the paddy seeds were supplied to those persons. The misappropriation alleged against the petitioner and nine others is to the tune of Rs.3,411/- only. Thus, for a sum of Rs.3,411/-, the petitioner along with nine others in the said department is made to suffer for more than 25 years. Though the show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner along with enquiry report by the first respondent on 8. 2000 and even after the reply of the petitioner dated 10. 2000, till date no final order has been passed by the first respondent. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, no reason is forthcoming why there is inordinate delay on the part of the fist respondent in not passing the final order in spite of the expiry of more than 7 years and 8 months. The entire counter affidavit of the second respondent dealt with only one aspect namely why the petitioner had not been promoted. Thus, the counter affidavit of the second respondent does not disclose the reason for the inordinate delay in passing the final order. The first respondent has not chosen to file any counter to explain the inordinate delay in passing the final order. 10. The Honourable Apex Court in the judgment in P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board 2005 (4) CTC 403 has held that if there is inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, the charge memo has to be quashed. The same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court which is in A. Obaidhullan v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat Chennai 9 and Another 2005 (5) CTC 380 . 11. The same view has been taken by the Division Bench of this Court which is in A. Obaidhullan v. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat Chennai 9 and Another 2005 (5) CTC 380 . 11. Considering the above facts and circumstances and considering the judgment referred to above, I am constrained to hold that there is unexplained inordinate delay in passing the final orders by the first respondent in spite of the fact that more than seven years and eight months have rolled on from the date of reply to show cause notice submitted by the petitioner to the first respondent. Furthermore, several opportunities have been given by me to the first respondent to pass final orders. But even then no final order has been passed. 12. In fine, I am inclined to set aside the charge memo issued to the petitioner by the fourth respondent on 27. 1991 and the writ petition stands allowed. It is needless to say that the respondents 1 to 3 shall settle all the consequential benefits to the petitioner and the respondents shall complete the said exercise within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No cost. Consequently, connected M.P. Nos. 1, 2 of 2007 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 are closed.