Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined in service, as an Assistant Agricultural Officer, in the year, 1982. Thereafter, he had worked at different places, without any blemish. While so, he was served with the charge memo, dated 16.4.2001, by the second respondent, stating that he had connived with four other officers and had created false records, as if sprayers and tarpaulin were supplied to farmers and had misappropriated the subsidy amount of Rs.1000/-. It had also been alleged that the petitioner had caused wrongful loss to the State government to the tune of Rs.2360/-and that he had not followed the government order, in G.O.Ms.No.111 Agriculture (AE II) Department, dated 19.2.1993, during the year 1993-1994. It has been further stated that the petitioner had submitted an explanation, refuting the charges levelled against him. However, an enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner, based on the said charges. The petitioner had submitted his statement, on 20.5.2003. However, no enquiry report had been furnished to the petitioner. 3. It had been further stated that, once again, in the year, 2006, another enquiry officer had been appointed for conducting an enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry had been conducted, on 23.3.2006. The petitioner had submitted his statements, on 3.3.2006. However, no enquiry report had been served on the petitioner till the date of the filing of the writ petition. Instead, the first respondent had served a show cause notice on the petitioner, vide his letter, dated 17.5.2007, for the submission of a further representation by the petitioner, as he had disagreed with the view of the enquiry officer, who had held that the charge levelled against the petitioner had not been proved. For the show cause notice received by the petitioner, on 6.7.2007, he had submitted his explanation, on 13.7.2007. However, no final order had been passed, based on the enquiry conducted, in respect of the charge levelled against the petitioner, till date. The petitioner has been put to severe financial loss and mental agony as he had not been considered for further promotions, which have been due to him, as no orders had been passed, based on the enquiry report. The petitioner has been put to severe financial loss and mental agony as he had not been considered for further promotions, which have been due to him, as no orders had been passed, based on the enquiry report. In fact, the petitioner had submitted several representations to the first respondent, including the representations submitted on 8.12.2007 and 28.1.2008, to confer the promotions due to the petitioner, at least on a temporary basis. However, there had been no response to the representations made by the petitioner. In such cirucmstances, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, in W.P.No.1671 of 2008. Inspite of an order having been passed by this Court to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon, the order passed by this Court had not been given effect to. 4. It has also been stated that, in respect of one C.Natesan, Agricultural Development Officer, who was also involved in the same occurrence and against whom similar charge had been framed orders had been passed dropping the charge, in G.O.(3D) No.398, Agriculture Department, dated 28.12.2007. However, no such action had been taken in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the respondents have been acting in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had relied on the decisions of this Court, made in W.P.No.1216 of 2011, dated 10.2.2011 (G.Kaliaperuamal Vs. The State of Tamilnadu) and W.P.Nos.26569 to 26571 of 2011, dated 2.3.2012 (Mr.Selvanayagam Vs. The Secretary to Government), in support of his contention that an unexplained and inordinate delay in conducting an enquiry or in passing final orders would vitiate the action taken against the person concerned, against whom certain allegations had been made. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, had been denied. It has been stated that an enquiry had been conducted against the officials involved, in respect of the alleged misappropriation and falsification of records. The enquiry officer had sent his enquiry report, on 26.4.2003. It has been stated that an enquiry had been conducted against the officials involved, in respect of the alleged misappropriation and falsification of records. The enquiry officer had sent his enquiry report, on 26.4.2003. On the basis of the said report the matter had been remitted to the State government, on 18.11.2003, for issuing final orders. However, by a letter No.34372/AA2/99-13, dated 30.8.2005, the government had requested for conducting a fresh enquiry against the petitioner, separately. Based on the instructions received from the government, Vijayakumar, Deputy Director (FTC), Nagerkovil, had been appointed as an enquiry officer, on 15.1.2006. The enquiry report of the said enquiry officer had been sent to the government, on 9.5.2006. However, no final orders had been passed by the government, till date. It is also stated that, until final orders are passed by the State government no promotions can be given to the petitioner. 7. It has also been stated that the State government is the final authority to issue final orders on the disciplinary action instituted against the petitioner. The State government would be passing final orders only after obtaining an opinion from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Law and Vigilance Departments. It may take some time for the final orders to be issued. Further, the view of the Tamilnadu Public Service Commission may also be obtained, as per Regulation 18(1)(b)(ii) of the Tamilnadu Public Service Regulations, 1954. It has also been stated that additional details had been sent to the State government from the office of the second respondent, vide letter, dated 26.4.2010 and final orders from the government are awaited. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Additional Superintendent of Police Vs. T.Natarajan, 1999 SCC (L&S) 646, to state that a mere delay would not vitiate the enquiry, unless the delay results in prejudice to the charged employee. 9. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, and in view of the decisions cited supra, this Court is of the considered view that there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in the passing of final orders, in respect of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, based on the allegations levelled against him. Further, the petitioner had not been given the promotions said to be due to him, due to the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, there is no doubt that the petitioner has been made to suffer severe mental agony and financial loss due to the pendency of the proceedings for such a long time, without proper explanation having been given for the delay. 10. It is also noted that the enquiry officer had held that the charges levelled against the petitioner had not been proved. However, it may be open to the disciplinary authority to differ from the findings of the enquiry officer. In such a case the enquiry officer ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation, before a final decision is arrived at by the disciplinary authority. Even otherwise, such decisions are to be taken by the appointing authority/disciplinary authority, within a reasonable length of time. Any delay that is caused in passing final orders should be properly explained, with sufficient reasons being given for such delay. In the present case there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in the passing of the final orders, by the first respondent. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be given all the service benefits due to him, as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.