JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal, as the matter lies in narrow campus. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner was a Professor in Plastic Surgery. He joined as Tutor in 1983 He was promoted as Senior Resident, Surgery in 1985. He was further promoted as Assistant Surgeon in 1986. While so, a charge memo dated 11.09.1987 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he allowed somebody to put the initials in the attendance Register on behalf of Dr.N.Parimalai, Formerly III Medical Officer, Chekkunarani, Madurai District. The petitioner denied the same in his explanation dated 04.10.1987. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner had participated in the enquiry. Enquiry was completed in 1987 itself, however, no final order was passed till date. In the mean time, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Professor in Plastic Surgery in 2002. Thereafter, he was promoted Senior Assistant Professor in Plastic Surgery in 2004 and further, promoted as Professor in Plastic Surgery in 2008. He was permitted to retire on 30.06.2012 by an order dated 29.6.2013, when he reached the age of superannuation without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a charge memo dated 4.3.2013, reproducing the same charges that were issued in 1987. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition to quash the charge memo dated 4.3.2013. 4. When the matter was listed for admission on 4.6.2013, the learned Special Government Pleader was directed to find out whether any other charges are pending against the petitioner. Today, the learned Special Government Pleader has stated that there are no other charges except this charge. 5. The charges framed against the petitioner are as follows: (i) That he has allowed Dr.N.Paraimalai, Formerly III Medical Officer, to tamper the attendance register in his favour. (ii) That he was allowed somebody to put the initials of Dr.N.Parimalai in the Attendance Register and has not taken any effort to find out the culprit. (iii) That he has accepted the undated as well as ante-dated leave applications of Dr.Parimalai in his favour. 6. The charges relate to the year 1987. The charges are also trivial in nature, the charges are not relating to any misappropriation of funds or bribe etc. (iii) That he has accepted the undated as well as ante-dated leave applications of Dr.Parimalai in his favour. 6. The charges relate to the year 1987. The charges are also trivial in nature, the charges are not relating to any misappropriation of funds or bribe etc. and that there is no reason as to why the respondent did not proceed with the enquiry that was conducted during 1987 and did not pass final orders on the enquiry. After 27 years the respondents want to restart the matter which was closed in 1987 itself. It is different matter the charges are very grave in nature like misappropriation and the delay cannot be fatal in those circumstances. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader has produced the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2008(3) CTC 781 (Ranjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Others) stating that the delay is not fatal. 8. I have perused the judgment referred to above. The said judgment cannot be applied to the facts of this case. It was the case where allegations were against the misappropriation of the appellant therein. The charge of misappropriation came to light belatedly. Hence, the Apex Court held that delay would not be fatal. While holding so, the Apex Court also held that when misconducts were known and there was no investigation pending and no explanation is forthcoming in regard to delay, necessarily unexplained delay would cause serious prejudice to employer and enquiry will have to be quashed. In fact, in paragraph No.8 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held as follows:- "8. ... But, where the alleged misconduct was known and there was no investigation pending and when no explanation is forth coming in regard to the delay, necessarily the unexplained delay wold cause serious prejudice to the employee an, therefore enquiry will have to be quashed. (Vide state of A.P. v. N.Radhakrishnan 1988 (4) SCC 14 and P.V.Mahadevan v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (2005(4) CTC 403 : 2005(6) SCC 636 ).” Thus, the judgment support the case of the petitioner. 9. Taking into account the nature of charges and also the fact that 26 years have gone and there was total inaction on the side of the respondents, I am inclined to quash the memo dated 4.3.2013. Accordingly, the impugned memo dated 4.3.2013 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 9. Taking into account the nature of charges and also the fact that 26 years have gone and there was total inaction on the side of the respondents, I am inclined to quash the memo dated 4.3.2013. Accordingly, the impugned memo dated 4.3.2013 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.