Order Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay as the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 78 days. 2. In view of the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 1827 of 2012 is allowed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties on merit. 4. By filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 283 of 2010, the petitioner challenged the charge-sheet served upon him for the alleged misconduct pertaining to the year 1997-98 to 2000-2001. Learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the disciplinary proceedings, hence, the appellant has come in the L.P.A to challenge the judgment of learned single Judge dated 22.2.2012 by which alongwith W.P.(S) No. 283 of 2010, petitioner's another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 5099 of 2009 has also been allowed. The present appellant is not aggrieved against the judgment rendered in W.P.(S) No. 5099 of 2009, therefore, facts of this case are not relevant. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that it is undisputed that the proceedings for minor penalty was initiated against the writ petitioner for his alleged misconduct of the year 1997 to 2001 and that too for allegation of overspending of some of the money i.e., for repair of official residence of the writ petitioner. It is also not in dispute that for the same alleged misconduct, some administrative action was taken in the year 2006 and the petitioner was cautioned. When petitioner became eligible for consideration after the said caution note of 25.10.2006, the petitioner was promoted to the higher post. 6. Be that as it may, when petitioner became eligible for further promotion and his case was under consideration at advance stage, then only, this departmental proceedings was initiated by issuing the letter dated 15.1.2010. 7. When petitioner became eligible for consideration after the said caution note of 25.10.2006, the petitioner was promoted to the higher post. 6. Be that as it may, when petitioner became eligible for further promotion and his case was under consideration at advance stage, then only, this departmental proceedings was initiated by issuing the letter dated 15.1.2010. 7. Learned single Judge has considered all the facts in detail and we need not to mention again those facts and we are of the considered opinion that in the facts of the case, when for minor penalty this fact came to the notice of the Department long back or at least in the year 2006 and he was given promotion thereafter and when petitioner's case was under consideration for further promotion, initiation of proceedings on the basis of the letter dated 15.1.2010 i.e., after delay of more than 9 years from the last year of the alleged misconduct and more than 10 years from the first year of the misconduct, was absolutely unjustified and, therefore, we are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned single Judge. As such, there is no merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.