Judgment :- W.P.No.9234/2005 is filed for a direction against the second respondent, namely, the Special Tahsildar, (Adi Dravidar Welfare) Sathiamangalam, Erode District from making any recovery from the petitioners pay pursuant to the instructions of the District Revenue Officer dated 28.09.2004. W.P.No.15067/2005 is filed to quash the proceedings of the respondent Tahsildar dated 11.4.2005 which is an order passed to recover the amount of Rs.53,937/-from the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act by giving a demand notice prior to the attachment of the land of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was working as a Special Revenue Inspector (Adi Dravidar Welfare) in Sathiamangalam. It appears that a departmental action was initiated against him in 1990. A charge-memo was issued on 10.7.1990 on the allegation that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.96,206/-being land revenue and land development taxes collected from the ryots. It is also stated that in the meantime a criminal case was lodged against him and it was taken on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai in C.C.No.110/90. It is stated that the petitioner has filed O.A.No.3211/1995 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal challenging the charge memo on the ground that on the same set of facts a criminal case was also pending. The said O.A.No.3211/1995 filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 24.7.2003 with a direction to the respondent department to proceed against the applicant in accordance with the decision of the Criminal Court. In the meantime, the Criminal Case filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.110/1990 was disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai acquitting the petitioner by judgment dated 13.7.1999. As against the final order passed in O.A.No.3211/1995 as stated above by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the first respondent in W.P.No.9234/2005 has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9341/2004. In the meantime, the Criminal Case filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.110/1990 was disposed of by the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai acquitting the petitioner by judgment dated 13.7.1999. As against the final order passed in O.A.No.3211/1995 as stated above by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the first respondent in W.P.No.9234/2005 has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9341/2004. As it is stated that the petitioner came to be acquitted in the Criminal Case, the Division Bench while disposing of the W.P.No.9341/2004 by order dated 24.11.2005 has taken note of the fact that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were set on the same facts and the Criminal Court having acquitted the petitioner, the Revenue administration is not justified in pursuing the departmental enquiry and held as under: "In the case on hand, the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, departmental and criminal were the same and in view of acquittal of the criminal case on merits, we are of the view that the Revenue administration is not justified in pursuing the departmental enquiry." Further, the Division Bench has also taken note of the common factual situation in the said case, namely, that there is inordinate and unexplained delay in proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings. A reference to the order of the Division Bench shows that the period of alleged misconduct is between 06.08.1981 and 10.8.1982 and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.11.1982 and the chargememo was issued on 26.01.1983 and the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner on 06.7.1986 and that order came to be set aside by the appellate authority on 07.10.86 by remanding the matter to the disciplinary authority for a fresh order. It is seen that thereafter the respondent revenue authority have framed fresh charge memo after four years, namely, on 10.7.1990. It is seen that thereafter the respondent revenue authority have framed fresh charge memo after four years, namely, on 10.7.1990. The Division Bench has taken note of the inordinate delay of 23 years which has not been explained properly and ultimately relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH V. N.RADHAKRISHNAN reported in ( 1998 (4) SCC 154 ) wherein the Supreme Court has held that inordinate delay in the disciplinary proceedings will be prejudicial to the interest of the delinquent since especially, in respect of corruption charges which relate to the integrity as the same would result in unbearable mental agony and distress apart from the fact that the delinquent may not be in a position to remember the facts at this distance of time and ultimately the Division Bench has held as follows: "In view of the fact that the alleged misconduct dates back to 8.11.82 and of the fact that the Revenue administration had taken longer time at every stage and taking note of the fact that the first respondent herein is due to retire from service on 30.11.2005 and also of the fact that it would not be fair on the part of the department to proceed with the departmental enquiry after 24 years of the alleged incident, the petitioner-District Revenue Officer, Erode is not permitted to proceed with the departmental enquiry. The first respondent shall be allowed to retire on 30.11.2005, if there is no other charge pending against him." By virtue of the said Division Bench order which has become final not only the petitioner was allowed to retire on 30.11.2005 but the entire departmental proceedings have come to an end by the judicial intervention. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the conduct of the petitioner would amount to embezzlement and therefore there is no impediment for the purpose of making enquiry, has no substance. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has set aside the disciplinary proceedings, there can be no recovery of any amount since the amount of misappropriation, namely, Rs.96,206/-itself was the charge which has been quashed. 3. In such circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court has set aside the disciplinary proceedings, there can be no recovery of any amount since the amount of misappropriation, namely, Rs.96,206/-itself was the charge which has been quashed. 3. The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the recovery sought to be made under the Revenue Recovery Act which is the subject matter of W.P.No.15067/2005 cannot be questioned on the ground that the petitioner has caused loss to the department by his conduct and therefore it is independent. These two contentions cannot be sustained. 4. In this view of the matter, these two Writ Petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected pending W.P.M.Ps., and M.V.M.P.are disposed of. 5.Out of the amount of Rs.96,206/-which formed part of the charge which stood quashed, it is seen that the respondents have recovered the amount of Rs.45,275/-by retaining the remaining amount of Rs.50,931/-. Inasmuch as there is absolutely no right on the part of the respondents to recover the amount, it is incumbent on the part of the respondents to return the amount which has been recovered based on the charge which stood quashed. 6. Both these writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the first respondent in W.P.No.9234/2005 to return the amount of Rs.45,275/-which has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.