Judgment V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard learned counsel Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh A. Patel for the respondents. 2. The brief facts are that both the petitioners were absent without any sanctioned leave in the year 1988 but, no action was taken by the respondents on the basis of the absence from duty. However, both the petitioners were dismissed from service by order dated 30.9.1988 and the order was to take effect after 21 days. Therefore, it appears that the petitioners did not go to duty as dismissal order has been passed against them. The dismissal order was challenged by the petitioners in departmental appeal but, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners challenged the dismissal order as well as the order of the Appellate Authority by way of writ petition, being Special Civil Application No. 7075 of 1988. The learned Single Judge allowed the said petition by judgment dated 4.5.1999 and set aside the dismissal order as well as the Appellate Authority’s order, on the ground that, without holding departmental inquiry proceedings, the petitioners who were working as constables, could not be dismissed from service and the learned Single Judge directed reinstatement of the petitioners. Said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 4.5.1999 became final and binding between the parties as the same was not challenged by the respondents either by filing Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court or by Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. 3. After the reinstatement order was passed by this Court, it appears that the respondents have issued the instant charge-sheet on 27.11.2000 against the petitioners, on the ground that they were absent from duty without leave in the year 1988. For 12 long years, no action was taken the against the petitioners with regard to their absence from duty. However, after the petitioners have been reinstated, the respondents woke up from slumber and issued the instant charge-sheet to the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the charge-sheet was issued after more than 12 years and there was no contribution on the part of the petitioners to cause delay in issuance of the charge-sheet and therefore, no action can be taken against the petitioners and the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed. 5. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the charge-sheet was issued after more than 12 years and there was no contribution on the part of the petitioners to cause delay in issuance of the charge-sheet and therefore, no action can be taken against the petitioners and the charge-sheet deserves to be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Radhakishan, AIR 1998 SC 1833 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, when there was no explanation why there was delay in issuing charge-sheet, the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. In our opinion, the charge-sheet should have been issued immediately but not after a lapse of 12 years. 6. It is not the case of the respondents that prior to dismissal of the petitioners from service, it was not within the knowledge of the respondents that earlier also, the petitioners were absent without leave, but they took no action. The Apex Court in M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 5 SCC 88 , in Para 16, has held that, ‘initiation of disciplinary proceedings after a long time of six years prejudiced the delinquent officer’. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 . 7. The charge was known to the respondents that prior to dismissal from service, the petitioners were absent from duty without sanctioned leave. There is delay of about 12 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence by issuing charge-sheet. Delay of about 12 years vitiates the departmental proceedings inasmuch as, in absence of any explanation on behalf of the respondents for inordinate delay in initiating the inquiry proceedings to justify issuance of the charge-sheet, after long delay, the charge-sheet cannot be upheld. The delay in issuing the charge-sheet after 12 years is unexplained, it prejudices the delinquent employee and demonstrates that the Disciplinary Authority was not serious in pursuing the charge of absence from duty without proper sanctioned leave. It appears that after 12 years, the charge-sheet has been issued as a counter-blast as the petitioners have succeeded before this Court and this Court directed petitioners reinstatement in service. It appears that after 12 years, the charge-sheet has been issued as a counter-blast as the petitioners have succeeded before this Court and this Court directed petitioners reinstatement in service. Permitting the respondents to proceed with the departmental proceedings in pursuance of the charge-sheet with regard to an incident which took place about 12 years before, in our opinion, is not justified. Therefore, the charge-sheet issued by the respondents against the petitioners deserve to be quashed. 8. Mr. Mukesh A. Patel, learned advocate for the respondents, has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Food Corporation of India vs. George Varghese and Another, AIR 1991 SC 1115 . We have gone through the said judgment but, found that the said decision does not apply to the facts of the case in hand. 9. Since the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioners for absence from duty without leave after more than 12 years, we are of the considered opinion that on the stale charges, no action can be taken against the petitioners and the charge-sheets deserve to be quashed. 10. In the result, both these petition succeed and are allowed. The charge-sheets issued to the petitioners by the respondents (Annexure-’A’) to the writ petitions are quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs. P P P P P