JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order dated 20.11.2010, wherein Disciplinary Authority has proceeded to pass order for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from the petitioner as also inflicting adverse entry in his character roll. 2. Brief background of the case is that the petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as Mali in the Forest Department. Petitioner was given charge-sheet on 25.2.2009 in respect of charge of the year 1993-94 by mentioning that while petitioner was working as Nursary incharge, he was deputed the work of plantation and he had not fulfilled the necessary target, as such there was loss. Petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter the Inquiry Officer straightway submitted report and based on the said report, order impugned has been passed. 3. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged. 4. Sri S.B. Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that entire proceedings undertaken against the petitioner are vitiated as at no point of time any date, time or place had been fixed for enquiry before imposing the penalty, and coupled with this such belated action against the petitioner could not have been entertained. 5. Countering the said submissions, learned standing counsel, on the other hand, has contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and same warrants no interference. 6. In the present case first issue raised is being looked into. Record in question reflects that charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 26.2.2009, to which petitioner submitted his reply. on 16.3.2009. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer without fixing any date time or place of enquiry straightaway submitted report, and based on the said report order impugned has been passed. Once Inquiry Officer was holding enquiry, then date, time and place ought to have been fixed by him, so that petitioner could also have his say in the matter. Report of Inquiry Officer as such cannot be approved of, and consequently action of Disciplinary Authority is also not being approved of. Minor punishment could have been awarded after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, but once regular departmental proceeding was being undertaken, then fixation of date, time and place by the Inquiry Officer was mandatory. Enquiry in the present case is, thus, in violation of principles of natural justice. Minor punishment could have been awarded after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, but once regular departmental proceeding was being undertaken, then fixation of date, time and place by the Inquiry Officer was mandatory. Enquiry in the present case is, thus, in violation of principles of natural justice. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India and others, (2006) 5 SCC 88 , wherein there was delay in initiation of proceedings, took the view that delay in initation of proceedings prejudiced the delinquent officer. Here, in the present case also, the matter is of the year 1993-94 and after 15 years inquiry has been initiated, as such initiation of inquiry at belated stage has prejudiced the cause of the petitioner. Coupled with this the Inquiry Officer has failed to fix any date, time or place of inquiry, and has straightaway submitted enquiry, report which has been made and foundation for passing the impugned order. In such a situation and in this background, the order impugned is not sustainable. 7. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.11.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. —————