Judgment D.MURUGESAN, J. - This writ appeal, at the instance of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short, "the Board"), is directed against the order allowing the writ petition filed by the first respondent-employee. The first respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the delinquent employee") was issued with the charge memo dated 16.7.2003 by the Board relating to his improper supervision in respect of the payments made towards construction at various points of time. As the explanation offered by the delinquent employee was not accepted by the Board, an enquiry was conducted. Admittedly, in the enquiry, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the Board. However, the delinquent employee was examined by the enquiry officer and, after extracting statements from him in the form of questions and answers, he was found guilty of the charges and a report was submitted. On the basis of such report, explanation were called for and the delinquent employee denied the charges. The delinquent employee also contended that the manner in which the enquiry came to be conducted was not proper, as he was questioned by the enquiry officer. Based upon the enquiry, he was issued with the order dated 29.6.2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,110/-per month for a period of 59 months and a sum of Rs.6,166/-for one month. The said order was questioned in the writ petition on the ground that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated, muchless the incident for which the charges were framed relates back to 23 years prior to the date of charge memo. The learned Judge, having gone into the contention, held that the delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings will vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings. Apart from that, the enquiry was conducted ex parte and no witnesses were examined on behalf of the Board. The learned Judge also found that a strange procedure of putting questions to the delinquent employee was adopted by the enquiry officer himself to hold the delinquent employee guilty by placing reliance upon such statement of evidence, ultimately, set aside the order. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. On the above factual background, the following two questions arise for our consideration:- 1. Whether the Board would be justified in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by way of charge memo after a period of 23 years of the incident? 2. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. On the above factual background, the following two questions arise for our consideration:- 1. Whether the Board would be justified in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by way of charge memo after a period of 23 years of the incident? 2. Whether the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in the conduct of enquiry by way of putting questions and eliciting answers from the delinquent employee would justify the test of reasonableness? 4. So far as the first question as to the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings is concerned, there is a series of judgments of the Apex Court on this issue. In State of Andhra Pradesh V. N.Radhakrishnan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 , the Apex Court, while considering the unexplained delay of 10 years having caused prejudice to the delinquent, 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 weight 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 face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. 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 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. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations." In P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 , the Apex Court held as follows:- "11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer." 5. The law on this subject is well settled. The delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings will certainly prejudice the case of the delinquent employee to defend the enquiry proceedings effectively, as by that time he may not have the records to defend the case. The law on this subject is well settled. The delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings will certainly prejudice the case of the delinquent employee to defend the enquiry proceedings effectively, as by that time he may not have the records to defend the case. Therefore only, the employer is expected to initiate the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable period and in the event of delay of 23 years, muchless without any explanation, as in this case, would certainly vitiate the entire enquiry proceedings. The finding in this regard by the learned Judge accepting the case of the delinquent employee requires no interference. 6. As far as the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in putting questions and eliciting answers from the delinquent employee is concerned, we may again refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 , where the Court laid down the following principles:- "11. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge: i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged, give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged, give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any." The learned Judge, after referring to the above law laid down by the Apex Court, held that the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee cannot be sustained and accordingly set aside the orders impugned in the writ petition. In our opinion, in view of the settled law by the Apex Court, the finding of the learned Judge on this aspect also requires no interference. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ appeal and the same is dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2012 is also dismissed. No costs.