Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the enquiry report, dated 14.01.1999, submitted by the third respondent, the consequential proceedings, dated 20.05.2003 and the Letter dated 22.03.2005, issued by the first respondent and quash the same. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to pay regular pension and other attendant benefits to him. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was working as a Block Development Officer and posted at Panchayat Union Office, Lalgudi, Trichy District and about to retire on 30.09.1993, the Director of Rural Development, Chennai, the second respondent herein, issued a charge memo, dated 27.09.1993, alleging that the petitioner has failed to take care of the custody of important cash book and failed to produce the books of accounts to the higher officers, inspite of repeated requests for the review meeting and that he has not maintained devotion to duties and thereby, violated Rule 20(1) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules. 3. Pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, the Government, in G.O.(2D)No.157, Rural Development Department, dated 30.09.1993, did not permit the petitioner to retire from service till the passing of final orders on the disciplinary proceedings, with effect from 010. 1993 and that the salary of the petitioner was reduced to provisional pension. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the writ petitioner, an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer has submitted his report dated 30.08.1996, holding that charges 1 and 2 as not proved and that the enquuiry officer has also offered his opinion to re-consider charge No.3. .4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the first respondent neither accepted the findings of the enquiry officer nor rejected the same. On the other hand, a fresh enquiry was conducted inspite of objections from the writ petitioner. The second enquiry report dated 14.01.1999 was submitted contrary to the earlier report holding that all the charges as proved. The first respondent, after issuing a second show-cause notice, dated 20.05.2003, called upon the petitioner to submit his further representation on the findings. Thereafter, the first respondent proposed to impose a punishment of cut in pension of Rs.50/-per month for a period of six months, as penalty. The first respondent, after issuing a second show-cause notice, dated 20.05.2003, called upon the petitioner to submit his further representation on the findings. Thereafter, the first respondent proposed to impose a punishment of cut in pension of Rs.50/-per month for a period of six months, as penalty. In the meanwhile, the Government issued orders in G.O.(D)148, dated 22.03.2005, revoking the order of suspension and permitted the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.09.1993, without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, the Government, vide proceedings dated 22.03.2005 have arrived at a provisional conclusion to impose a punishment of cut in pension of Rs.50/- per month, for a period of six months and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation for the proposed punishment. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 24.06.2005, denying all the charges framed against him. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the District Collector, Karur, vide proceedings dated 28.05.2004, informed the Director of Rural Development, Chennai, the second respondent herein, stating that the petitioner was not responsible for the irregularities and that some other person, who was in service, at the relevant point of time alone was responsible for non-production of the records for verification. 6. It is the grievance of the petitioner that on the basis of the said communication, the respondents ought to have withdrawn the charge memo, the enquiry report and dropped further action on the disciplinary proceedings. Since no action was taken at their end, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 18.07.2006, requesting the respondents to withdraw the proposed communication. As disciplinary proceedings were pending for a long number of years, the petitioner is constrained to prefer this writ petition for the relief as stated supra. 7. Assailing the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has submitted that when the enquiry officer has submitted a report dated 30.08.1996, holding that charges 1 and 2, as not proved and also recommended for re-consideration of charge No.3, the Government, without following the mandatory procedure, ordered for a re-enquiry and that in the subsequent enquiry, all the charges were held as proved. According to the petitioner, re-enquiry ordered by the Government and the subsequent enquiry report dated 14.01.1999, holding that the petitioner as guilty of all the charges, is erroneous. 8. According to the petitioner, re-enquiry ordered by the Government and the subsequent enquiry report dated 14.01.1999, holding that the petitioner as guilty of all the charges, is erroneous. 8. The petitioner has further submitted that having allowed him to retire from service through a communication dated 20.05.2003, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to continue the enquiry in the absence of any allegation of monetary loss to the Government and therefore, continuation of disciplinary proceedings under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, is illegal. 9. The petitioner has further submitted that though disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 1993, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 years in finalising the disciplinary proceedings and that the same caused agony and prejudice to his defence. Prolonging the disciplinary proceedings for a long time itself is a punishment to the petitioner. The petitioner has further submitted that he has retired from service in the year 1993 and though a favourable enquiry report was submitted way back on 30.08.1996, the first respondent, without assigning proper reasons, has ordered for a fresh enquiry and proposed to impose a punishment, after a lapse of 10 years. .10. Per contra, Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that when the petitioner was working as Additional Block Development Officer from 312. 1990 to 02.06.1992 at Kadavur Panchayat Union, in the erstwhile Tiruchirappalli District, he had committed serious financial irregularities under the "Jawahar Velai Vaippu Thittam" in connivance with four other officials of Kadavur Panchayat Union. The Assistant Project Officer (Accounts), Tiruchirappalli District, had reported the above said matter to the Government and of the fact of diversion of grants relating to the year 1990-91. He also submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce the Accounts for March-1992, inspite of specific instructions, issued by the Project Officer, during the review meeting. He further submitted that the Assistant Project Officer (Accounts) has also reported that cash books for the period from 01.04.1990 to 312. 1990 were also not made available for verification. 11. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner has not only failed to verify the cash books daily but, also failed to intimate the loss to the higher authorities. 1990 were also not made available for verification. 11. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner has not only failed to verify the cash books daily but, also failed to intimate the loss to the higher authorities. In these circumstances, the then Additional Block Development Officer, in his report dated 17.02.1993, submitted to the Project Officer, District Rural Development Agency, Tiruchirappali District, had stated that the petitioner was responsible for the irregularities and that the same lead to misappropriation of Government funds against the norms. Hence, the petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules against the (1) petitioner, (2) former Manager, (3) former Accountant and also against the former Additional Block Development Officer, Kadavur Panchayat Union. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that in the explanation dated 14.05.1993, the petitioner himself has admitted that he had diverted a small portion of the expenditure from the fund for the year 1991-92. Lateron, he was reinstated in service on 31.05.1993. Thereafter, the District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, appointed the Divisional Development Officer, Ariyalur, as enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and other delinquent officials. Subsequently, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.223, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 26.06.1993, the Director of Rural Development, Chennai, the second respondent herein, framed charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, in supersession of the earlier charge memo, framed by the Collector of Tiruchirappalli District and continued the disciplinary proceedings along with other delinquent officials. 13. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that apart from the abovesaid disciplinary action, two other disciplinary proceedings were also pending against the petitioner. When disciplinary proceedings were pending, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.1993 and in view of the pending proceedings, he was once again placed under suspension on 27.09.1993, by the Director of Rural Development, Chennai. In such circumstances, retention of the petitioner in service was required and therefore, by G.O.(2D)No.157, RD, dated 30.09.1993, the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service and consequently, he was paid provisional pension, to which he was eligible. 14. In such circumstances, retention of the petitioner in service was required and therefore, by G.O.(2D)No.157, RD, dated 30.09.1993, the petitioner was not permitted to retire from service and consequently, he was paid provisional pension, to which he was eligible. 14. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the Divisional Development Officer, Musiri, the Enquiry Officer, has submitted his report on 30.08.1996, holding that two charges were not proved and one charge required re-consideration. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that upon perusal of the report and materials on record, the disciplinary authority found that the enquiry officer had not enquired into the charges, with reference to the basis on which they were formulated and therefore, rejected the report of the enquiry officer and ordered for a fresh enquiry. According to learned Special Government Pleader, the first respondent is empowered to order for a fresh enquiry, if the same is not conducted by following the procedures contemplated under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 15. Learned Special Government Pleader has further submitted that after a detailed examination of the case, the Government have arrived at a provisional conclusion to impose a punishment of cut in pension of Rs.50/- per month for a period of six months and that the same was communicated to the writ petitioner with a direction to submit his reply as to whether he is willing to accept the proposed penalty or not. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted a letter dated 15.05.2005, stating that he was not in favour of the penalty sought to be inflicted. 16. Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that since the petitioner refused to accept the provisional conclusion of the Government, as per Regulations 18(1)(C) of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, the matter was referred to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and that the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission are yet to be received. He further submitted that though the proceedings have been initiated in the year 1993, the same could not be completed immediately, as several officers were involved in the irregularities warranting disciplinary action. 17. He has also submitted that when the Director of Rural Development, Chennai, framed charges on 27.09.1993, the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation on the disciplinary proceedings and only after the appointment of the enquiry officer on 012. 17. He has also submitted that when the Director of Rural Development, Chennai, framed charges on 27.09.1993, the petitioner was directed to submit his explanation on the disciplinary proceedings and only after the appointment of the enquiry officer on 012. 1995, the petitioner had submitted his explanation on 112. 1995. Thus, he submitted that the petitioner took more than two years to submit his explanation, which was one of the caused for the delay. 18. He further submitted that as the enquiry report furnished by the Divisional Development Officer, Musiri, dated 30.08.1996, was faulty and not with reference to the basis of the charges, a fresh enquiry was ordered and the second enquiry officer has submitted his report only on 14.01.1999. Thereafter, the enquiry officer report was communicated to the petitioner on 22.02.2000 and in response to the same, the petitioner submitted a further representation on the findings on 10.07.2000. He further submitted that after receipt of the further representation, the matter was referred to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under Regulations 18(1)(C) and certain additional records sought for by the Commission were forwarded. In these circumstances, he submitted that there is no wilful delay or inaction on the part of the respondents in finalising the disciplinary proceedings. According to him, when the findings rendered on the charges are based on evidence, and if a provisional conclusion has been arrived at by the disciplinary authority to impose a punishment of cut in pension of Rs.50/-per month for a period of six months, unless the findings are shown to be perverse or in the absence of any serious procedural irregularities causing prejudice to the writ petitioner, no interference is called for. For the above said reasons, he submitted that there is no procedural irregularities warranting interference with the impugned orders and hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 19. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 20. Before adverting to the points raised in this writ petition, it is necessary to extract the charges framed against the petitioner in proceedings dated 27.09.1993 of the Director of Rural Development, Chennai. Charge 1: The Block Development Officer, as Head of Office, has to take care of the maintenance of the Registers and records. Cash Book is a very important register maintained in the panchayat Union or in any other office. Charge 1: The Block Development Officer, as Head of Office, has to take care of the maintenance of the Registers and records. Cash Book is a very important register maintained in the panchayat Union or in any other office. He has failed to take care of the custody of important Cash Book. This shows his lethargic attitude, carelessness and indifference in the maintenance and management of office. 2. That he had failed to produce the Accounts and financial statements for the expenditure incurred to the higher office, inspite of repeated requests and instructions over phone and during review meetings for verification. 3. That he has not maintained devotion to this duties and thereby contravened to Rule 20(1) of TNGS Conduct Rules. The attention of Thiru.N.R.Rajendran, formerly Additional Block Development Officer, Kadavur, now working as Panchayat Union Commissioner, Perambalur is drawn to the Rule 17(b) of TNCS (CC & A) Rules and directed to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of this charge memo. A questionnaire form is enclosed. The delinquent Thiru.N.R.Rajendran is instructed to resubmit the questionnaire form duly filled in. he should specifically state whether he desires oral enquiry or to be heard in persons or both. Further, he is informed that if his written statement of defence along with questionnaire form is not received within the time stipulated, it will be construed that he no explanation to offer and further action will be proceeded as per rules." 21. Pleadings disclose that as the petitioner was due to retire from service on 30.09.1993, the Government have issued G.O.(SD)No.157, Rural Development Department, dated 30.09.1993, suspending him from service under Rule 56(1)(C) of the fundamental rules retaining him from service for the purpose of completion of the enquiry proceedings. Perusal of the first enquiry report dated 30.08.1996, submitted by the Divisional Development Officer, Musiri, shows that charges 1 and 2 were held as not proved and that the enquiry officer has also offered his opinion to re-consider charge No.3. While arriving at such a conclusion, the Divisional Development Officer, Musiri, has considered both oral and documentary evidence let in by the department against the writ petitioner and only thereafter, he has come to the said conclusion. While arriving at such a conclusion, the Divisional Development Officer, Musiri, has considered both oral and documentary evidence let in by the department against the writ petitioner and only thereafter, he has come to the said conclusion. Pleadings and materials on record further disclose that the disciplinary authority has considered the report and found that the enquiry officer has not enquired into the charges with reference to the basis of the charges and therefore, rejected the report in respect of the delinquent officers and ordered for a fresh enquiry. 22. Perusal of the second enquiry report dated 14.09.1999 of the Personal Assistant to the District Collector, Karur, the second enquiry officer, does not reflect consideration of the defence put forth by the writ petitioner. After extracting the charges and explanation, the enquiry officer has merely recorded his findings on the charges and there is no discussion, of the defence. It is well known that in disciplinary proceedings, an enquiry officer, is appointed only to assist in assimilating the facts and evidence and that he has to assess the same in proper perspective, and before arriving at a provisional conclusion, he has to assign appropriate reasons for his conclusion and more particularly, in that process, he has to necessarily consider and give appropriate reasons legally acceptable, however brief it may be, for rejecting the explanation offered by the delinquent officer. In the case on hand, going through the enquiry report, this Court is of the considered view that the enquiry officer has not adverted to the defence put up by the writ petitioner in proper perspective. 23. Even in theshow-cause notice, dated 20.05.2003, issued by the Secretary to the Government, Rural Development (EO) Department, Chennai, the disciplinary authority has failed to consider the further representation of the writ petitioner, on the enquiry officers report. Non-application of mind on the part of the first respondent is explicit, as regards the defence put up by the writ petitioner. In this context, it is relevant to extract, as to how the disciplinary authority has proceeded with the matter. "In the charge memo first cited, the Director of Rural Development framed charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for certain irregularities committed by you. You received the charge memo and submitted your explanation. An Enquiry Officer was appointed ot conduct the enquiry. The officer submitted his enquiry report. "In the charge memo first cited, the Director of Rural Development framed charges under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for certain irregularities committed by you. You received the charge memo and submitted your explanation. An Enquiry Officer was appointed ot conduct the enquiry. The officer submitted his enquiry report. A copy of the Enquiry Officers report was communicated to you for further representation. You have submitted your further representation on the Enquiry Officers report. 2. In the G.O. Second cited, you have permitted to retire from service on 30.09.93 without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against you. 3. Government after careful examination of the matter, have concluded that all the three charges framed against you, are hold as proved. For the proved charges Government have arrived at a Provisional conclusion to impose the punishment of a cut in pension of Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only) per month for a period fo six months from the pension payable to you as a measure of penalty. 4. Your attention in this contention is drawn to Rule 9 of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. You are requested to submit your reply as to whether you accept or not the propose penalty indicated in para 3 above within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter. If no reply is received from you within stipulated time, it will be construed that you have no further explanation to offer in this regard and the matter will be decided on its merits with connected records." 24. After extracting the formulation of the charges under Rule 17-B of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, the Government have simply concluded that all the charges framed against the petitioner as proved and proposed to impose a punishment of cut in pension of Rs.50/-per month, for a period of six months, as a measure of penalty. 25. Thus, it could be seen that there is a deprivation of the petitioners right to consider his defence effectively. It is well settled that while concurring with the views of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority need not assign detailed reasons or pass an order like a judgment. But, it is mandatory that the disciplinary authority has to assign some reasons legally acceptable and however brief it may be, concurring with the views of the enquiry officer. It is well settled that while concurring with the views of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority need not assign detailed reasons or pass an order like a judgment. But, it is mandatory that the disciplinary authority has to assign some reasons legally acceptable and however brief it may be, concurring with the views of the enquiry officer. In order to prove that the disciplinary authority has independently applied his mind to the facts which necessitated the formulation of charges, whether the evidence on record is sufficient to hold the delinquent guilty of charges, whether the procedure contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules has been followed and whether the punishment is proportionate to the gravity of charges he should necessarily assign reasons. In the provisional conclusion arrived at by the Government, reasons to be recorded are conspicuously absent. What is recorded is only conclusions and not reasons. 26. Perusal of the proceedings in R.C.No.Pa.Va.1/3302/2004, dated 28.05.2004 of the District Collector, Karur, addressed to the Director, Rural Development, Chennai, the second respondent herein, shows that in response to a request made by the second respondent in his letter No.R.C.No.95319/93/T.P.C. 3.3, dated 03.05.2004, calling for remarks on the explanation dated 11.09.2003, submitted by the writ petitioner, the District Collector, Karur, has offered his remarks that though the petitioner was responsible for the audit and production of accounts and accounts books for the year 1990-91, yet he was not personally responsible for the same with reference to the inspection conducted on 14.08.1992. As rightly contended by the petitioner, though the District Collector, Karur District, in his remarks dated 28.05.2004, has observed that the petitioner cannot be made responsible for non-production of the documents on 14.08.1992, i.e., on the day when the inspection was done for the audit year 1990-91, there is absolutely no consideration on this aspect by the Government in their letter dated 22.03.2005. When the disciplinary authority has called for a reply from the petitioner as to whether he was willing to accept the proposed penalty or not, the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 24.06.2005, to the above said show-cause notice and he has not accepted the proposed penalty. On the other hand, he has sent a further representation dated 18.07.2006 to the Director, Rural Development, Chennai, the second respondent. On the other hand, he has sent a further representation dated 18.07.2006 to the Director, Rural Development, Chennai, the second respondent. Even today, the disciplinary authority has not passed any final orders on the proceedings initiated in the year 1993 for an allegation said to have taken place for the period from 01.04.1990 to 312. 1990. 27. The allegations relate to failure to take care of custody of the important cash books and failure to produce the accounts and financial statements for the expenditure incurred, to the higher officials, instead of repeated requests and instructions given during the review meeting for verification. Though the respondents in their counter affidavit have alleged heavy financial expenditure, and irregularities to the tune of several lakhs under "Jawahar Velai Vaippu Thittam" in connivance with four other officials of Kadavur Panchayat Union of erstwhile Tiruchirappalli District, the charges levelled against the petitioner do not attract any of the above mention grave irregularities, such as, misconduct involving moral turpitude, embezzlement, misappropriation etc., warranting grave punishment. .28. Perusal of the charges shows that the allegations pertain to administrative lapses on the part of the writ petitioner. The sum and substance of the charges are lethargic attitude, carelessness and indifference in maintenance and management of office and failure to produce the accounts and financial statements for the expenditure incurred to the higher officials, inspite of instructions. Though the respondents have contended that the petitioner has taken considerable time for submitting his explanation, as one of the reasons for the delay, the said contention is not acceptable, for the reason that the respondents have taken nearly 12 years to come to a provisional conclusion for imposing a penalty of cut in pension of Rs.50/-per month, for six months. Perusal of the counter affidavit further shows that though the petitioner has offered his explanation, dated 24.06.2005, to the show-cause, the respondents, after referring the matter to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission under Regulation 18(C), have not taken any action to get any opinion from the Commission and pass appropriate orders. 29. In this context, it is consider as to whether the delay in finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings would cause prejudice to a delinquent official and on that score, disciplinary proceedings could be set aside. .30. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. 29. In this context, it is consider as to whether the delay in finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings would cause prejudice to a delinquent official and on that score, disciplinary proceedings could be set aside. .30. In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N.Radhakrishnan reported in AIR 1998 SCC 1833 : 1998 (4) SCC 154 , the Honble Supreme Court has considered the case of inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and held as follows: ."19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the Court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings, in considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the fact of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations. 31. Following the ratio decidendi in N.Radhakrishnans case cited supra, a recent judgment reported in S.Sekar Vs. Commissioner of Social Welfare, Ezhilagam, Chennai reported in 2010 (1) MLJ 708 , a learned Judge at paragraph 11 has observed as follows: "11. Also, it is a settled proposition that while considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules; but then, delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officers unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations". In the above reported case, there was a delay of 12 years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and that there was no explanation for such delay. 32. In State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department, Chennai-9 and others Vs. R.Karuppiah and another reported in 2005(3) CTC 4, a Division Bench of this Court has considered the correctness of the order of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, and set aside the disciplinary proceedings. One of the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for setting aside the disciplinary proceedings was that there was a long delay in finalising the same. R.Karuppiah and another reported in 2005(3) CTC 4, a Division Bench of this Court has considered the correctness of the order of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, and set aside the disciplinary proceedings. One of the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for setting aside the disciplinary proceedings was that there was a long delay in finalising the same. Testing the correctness of the order of the Tribunal, among other grounds, the Division Bench, at paragraph 30, observed as follows: "That apart, as rightly held by the Tribunal that keeping of the disciplinary proceedings alive for nearly one and a half decade against the retired Government servant, on whom the petitioners have no jurisdiction to proceed against him, is itself fatal to the disciplinary proceedings". 33. In A.Bommusamy Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2007 (3) CTC 518 , a Division Bench of this Court has considered a case where disciplinary proceedings was initiated on the verge of retirement. The petitioner was to retire on 31.03.1987. By proceedings dated, 27.02.1987, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 17-a of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules for imposing a minor penalty. On receipt of the petitioners explanation, a revised charge memo dated 13.03.1987, involving a procedure for imposing major penalty was issued, just 17 days before retirement. Though, an enquiry was initiated as early as on 10.08.1987, the passing of an order of punishment was kept pending for about five years and finally a punishment was imposed on 21.01.1993. Having regard to the ratio decidendi of the Courts in the matter, where no reasonable explanation was offered, the Division Bench, at paragraph 13 observed as follows: "13. Further, there was inordinate delay in passing the order of punishment. Though the enquiry was initiated as early as on 8. 1987, the passing of the order of punishment was kept pending for about five years and finally the punishment was imposed on 21. 1993. There is no explanation for such an inordinate delay in passing the final order. Time and again, the Supreme Court and this Court has deprecated the initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against an employee or the fag end of his retirement and keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the employee under suspension. Time and again, the Supreme Court and this Court has deprecated the initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings against an employee or the fag end of his retirement and keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the matter pending for a long time by keeping the employee under suspension. Further when the petitioner had pleaded that there was official prejudice and enmity between him and the third respondent in the matter of use and maintenance of the official vehicle, the Tribunal has failed to consider this aspect of the case in proper perspective while dismissing the Original Applications. The Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when there was hardly fifteen days left for his retirement. More over, when his date of retirement is on 13. 1987 and the order of suspension was passed on 23. 1987 by invoking G.O. No. 173. Therefore, when once the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation on 13. 1987, the placing the petitioner under suspension after his date of superannuation is without authority and that when the relationship of master-servant ceased to exist, no Disciplinary Proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner. On this ground also, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside." 34. In Ranjeet Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others reported in 2008 (3) CTC 781, the Honble Supreme Court considered the correctness of a judgment made in a second appeal, dismissing the plea that there was no substantial question of law in interfering with the judgment and decree made by the District Court, which reversed a decree passed in a suit for declaration, declaring a show cause notice issued after a delay of 7 years after concluding the departmental enquiry, as illegal. There was also a delay of 9 years in initiating disciplinary proceedings. In the above reported case, for an allegation of the year 1974, a charge memo was issued in 1983, after 9 years. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 01.01.1985. After a delay of nearly 7 years, the department issued a show cause notice with a copy of the report, proposing to impose a penalty. After submitting the explanation, the Government servant preferred a suit to declare a show cause notice proposing to impose a punishment as invalid. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the action of the employer imposing punishment as illegal. After submitting the explanation, the Government servant preferred a suit to declare a show cause notice proposing to impose a punishment as invalid. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the action of the employer imposing punishment as illegal. The State preferred an appeal to the District Court. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the Government servant filed a second appeal to the High Court. The decision made by the District Court was confirmed. Testing the correctness of the judgment and decree and following the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs.N.Radhakrishnan reported in AIR 1998 SCC 1833 : 1998 (4) SCC 154 and P.V.Mahadevan V.Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reported in 2005 (4) CTC 403, the Honble Supreme Court, at paragraph 9 has held as follows: "We have extracted the charges against the appellant. These charges did not require any detailed investigation. In view of the unexplained delay of nine years the Trial Court was justified in holding that the entire enquiry was vitiated and in declaring that the order of punishment to be null and void. The Appellate Court did not have any justifiable reason to interfere with the said finding. In the circumstance, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have interfered in the matter as the Appeal involved a substantial question of law, i.e whether issue of charge sheet after nine years when there are no special circumstance to explain the delay vitiated the enquiry. As the matter is old and as we have already found that the delay vitiated the enquiry, no purpose will be served by remitting the matter. We propose to dispose of the Appeal on merits". 35. The Honble Supreme Court reversed the judgment and decree of the High Court and the first appellate Court and consequently restored the judgment of the decree of the trial Court, setting aside the penalty. 36. Pleadings in the case on hand disclose that the proceedings were initiated during the year 1993 and when there was a favourble report to the petitioner, the first respondent has ordered for a fresh enquiry and sought for imposition of punishment after a lapse of 10 years during 2003-2005. 36. Pleadings in the case on hand disclose that the proceedings were initiated during the year 1993 and when there was a favourble report to the petitioner, the first respondent has ordered for a fresh enquiry and sought for imposition of punishment after a lapse of 10 years during 2003-2005. Though the disciplinary authority is empowered to order a fresh enquiry, if the earlier enquiry was not conducted with reference to the charges, yet successive enquiries on the same subject matter is not permissible unless, the defect in conducting the enquiry goes to the root of the matter. Otherwise, it would be confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the disciplinary authority till he gets a desired report. Even after arriving at the provisional conclusion for imposing a penalty of cut in pension of Rs.50/-per month, for six months, the matter has been dragged on for five years on the ground that appropriate opinion has to be obtained from the Public Service Commission. There is no reasonable explanation from the respondents for the unexplained delay in not obtaining the opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was aged about 71 years and for nearly 17 years, the disciplinary proceedings is yet to be concluded. The decisions stated supra apply to the facts of this case. 37. For the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned disciplinary proceedings right from the date of formulation of charges has to be set aside, as the petitioner was kept under damocles sword from 1993 onwards, till he attained the age of superannuation. As rightly contended by the petitioner, the mental agony faced by the petitioner right from 1993 itself, is a punishment. Before parting with the case, this Court is of the view that, if for non-production of certain account books and other records, which is an administrative lapse, the petitioner has to suffer for nearly 14 years, what action should be taken against those who are responsible for the delay of more than 14 years in finalizing the disciplinary proceedings and for not obtaining the opinion from the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for five years. 38. In fine, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. 38. In fine, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings impugned in this writ petition dated 20.05.2003 and 22.03.2005, are set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to settle the terminal benefits, due and payable to the petitioner, by not latter than three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.