Judgment : 1. Petitioner seeks writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Charge Memo in Na.Ka.No.7608/83/E issued on 10.05.1985. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: (i) Petitioner while working as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies under the control of the 2nd Respondent i.e., Deputy Registrar (Dairying), Salem in 1983, is alleged to have committed certain lapses in the discharge of his duties. Disciplinary action was initiated against the Petitioner by the 2nd Respondent i.e., the Deputy Registrar / Dairying, Salem in RC 7608/83 C Dt: 10.05.1985 and a charge memo was issued to the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules now Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Charge Memo was served upon the Petitioner on 20.12.1985 and the Petitioner had acknowledged the same on 212. 1985. Since no explanation was forthcoming from the Petitioner, reminders were sent to the Petitioner in 1987 calling upon him to submit his explanation. 2. Thereafter no action was taken in respect of Charge Memo. In 2005, 1st Respondent in his proceedings Rc.1754/05 DA dated 211. 2005 has appointed 3rd Respondent as Enquiry Officer. 3rd Respondent issued notice to the Petitioner to appear for disciplinary proceedings. On that stage Petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the Charge Memo on the ground of delay. 3. Opposing the petition Respondents have filed counter contending that the Petitioner has been delaying the proceedings and there was no unexplained delay as alleged by the Petitioner. 4. Placing reliance upon 2005 (4) CTC 403 P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, contended that the inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel further submitted that there has been unexplained and inordinate delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. 5. On behalf of the Respondents learned Addl.Govt.Pleader Mr.N.Senthilkumar, submitted that the Petitioner was served with Charge Memo even in 1985 and thereafter the Petitioner was repeatedly taking adjournments. It was further submitted that the Petitioner having requested for copy of Charge Memo and sought for adjournments, it is not open for the Petitioner to challenge the disciplinary proceedings. Alleged lapses are said to have occurred during 1982. It was further submitted that the Petitioner having requested for copy of Charge Memo and sought for adjournments, it is not open for the Petitioner to challenge the disciplinary proceedings. Alleged lapses are said to have occurred during 1982. In the impugned Charge Memo Na.Ka.No.7608/83/E dated 10.05.1985, charges were framed against the Petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamilnadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules now Tamilnadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The gist of charges are as follows: "Without approval of Deputy Registrar, petitioner who was then working as Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies had allegedly written accounts of Edayapatti Society and amount was spent for the same; "Petitioner indulged in money transaction which is not befitting of a Government servant; "The Petitioner allegedly operated beyond his administrative area and taken steps for obtaining loan for other villages i.e., Tirumalaipatti; "Petitioner had made false entries. 6. As pointed out earlier, Charge Memo was served upon the Petitioner on 20.12.1985 and the Petitioner had acknowledged its receipt on 212. 1985. Since Petitioner had not submitted his explanation few reminders were sent to the Petitioner during 1985-1987 (Letter No.2094/85A dt:25.04.1986;Rc.2094/85 A dt:15.09.1987 and Rc.10342/87 A1 dt:210. 1987) calling upon the Petitioner to submit his explanation for the charges levelled against him. Thereafter there was no further proceedings in the disciplinary action. As pointed out earlier, averments in the counter affidavit refer to certain reminders, absolutely there was no further progress after 1987. 7. According to the Respondents the Petitioner had been repeatedly taking adjournments and delaying the disciplinary proceedings. The counter affidavit does not indicate the stages of disciplinary enquiry between 1987 to 2005. 8. Observing that Charge Memo is liable to be quashed where there is inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings, in 2005 (4) CTC 403 P.V.Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows: ".... 14. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher Government official under charges of corruption and dispute integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. 14. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher Government official under charges of corruption and dispute integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the Department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. 9. Observing that inordinate delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings is a ground for ......" quashing the enquiry unless the delay is satisfactorily explained, in (2008) 6 MLJ 139 (SC) Ranjeet Singh vs. State of Haryana and Others the Honble Supreme Court has held as under: "...... But where the alleged misconduct was known and there was no investigation pending and when no explanation is forthcoming in regard to the delay, necessarily the unexplained delay would cause serious prejudice to the employee and, therefore, enquiry will have to be quashed. [State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1998 SC 1833 : (1998) 4 SCC 154 and P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, Tamilnadu Housing Board AIR 2006 SC 207 : (2005) 6 SCC 636 : 2005-III-LLJ-527] 10. I have extracted the charges in Para No.(5). Those charges do not require any detailed investigation. When the Petitioner had not sent his explanation, further action taken by the Respondents is not known. In fact, Petitioner was promoted as Cooperative Sub-Registrar. It is difficult to accept the plea of Respondents that Petitioner got promotion as CSR by suppressing the pendency of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b). 11. Those charges do not require any detailed investigation. When the Petitioner had not sent his explanation, further action taken by the Respondents is not known. In fact, Petitioner was promoted as Cooperative Sub-Registrar. It is difficult to accept the plea of Respondents that Petitioner got promotion as CSR by suppressing the pendency of disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b). 11. After delay of more than 20 years, on instruction of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has sent the file in Rc.20482/2002 DA 3 dated 10.06.2002, the Commissioner for Milk Production and Dairy Development, has sent the disciplinary proceedings file to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvallur under whose administrative control the Petitioner was working. As the charges were framed while the Petitioner was working in the Salem Region, the Joint Registrar, Thiruvallur has sent the file to the 1st Respondent in R.C.5993/02 A1 dated 25.01.2005. After receipt of the file 1st Respondent has appointed the 3rd Respondent as the Enquiry Officer. On consideration of the above, it is clear that file relating to the disciplinary proceedings appears to have been taken up nearly after 20 years. Unexplained and inordinate delay in the disciplinary proceedings is the ground for quashing the Charge Memo and the disciplinary proceedings. 12. In the result, the Charge Memo Na.Ka.No.7608/83/E issued on 10.05.1985 is quashed and this writ petition is allowed.