JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Vikram Singh, who was serving as Assistant Secretary in the respondent-Sirohi Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd., is aggrieved by order Annex. 7 dated 21.6.2000, whereby, the Hon'ble Minister of the Cooperative Societies dismissed his revision petition against the order dated 14.10.1998. 2. Brief facts leading to the present writ petition are like this. 3. The allegation against the present petitioner was that a sum of Rs. 10,600/- was given to him by loanee of the Bank for depositing back the same in the loan account with the respondent Bank, which was not timely deposited by him but the same was deposited by private respondent Khajan Singh after sometime and accordingly a departmental inquiry was held in the matter and the Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur on the said preliminary inquiry under Section 17(6) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 vide Annex. 2 dated 17.1.1997 found that the petitioner was not responsible for the said defalcation, whereas, private respondent -Khajan Singh was so responsible in the matter, who was working as Supervisor in the respondent Bank. Aggrieved by this finding of the Joint Registrar, the private respondent Khajan Singh filed a revision petition before the Additional Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Jaipur, who allowed the revision petition vide order Annex. 6 dated 14.10.1998 and set aside the finding of the preliminary inquiry dated 17.1.1997 and remanded the matter back to the said authority. Aggrieved of the said remand order dated 14.10.1998, the petitioner filed revision petition before the Hon'ble Minister and the competent authority in the Secretariat of Hon'ble Minister dismissed his revision petition by the impugned order Annex. 7 dated 21.6.2000 and, thus, the remand order made by the Addl. Registrar vide Annex. 6 dated 14.10.1998 held the field. The petitioner preferred this writ petition in this court on 8.9.2000 and while issuing notices to the respondents, the coordinate bench of this Court stayed the fresh inquiry against the petitioner vide order dated 13.9.2000, which stay order has now continued for almost 14 years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after long lapse of approximately 20 years, fresh inquiry is not likely to yield any result, as admittedly, the amount in question of Rs. 10,600/- were admittedly deposited back with the respondent bank and no financial loss was caused to the respondent bank. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after long lapse of approximately 20 years, fresh inquiry is not likely to yield any result, as admittedly, the amount in question of Rs. 10,600/- were admittedly deposited back with the respondent bank and no financial loss was caused to the respondent bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was exonerated in the report dated 17.1.1997, the revisional authority had erred in allowing the revision of private respondent - Khajan Singh vide Annex. 6 dated 14.10.1998 and by remanding the said matter back for fresh inquiry was improper and not at all required and dismissal of the second revision petition of the petitioner by the Hon'ble Minister was unjustified. He however, urged that in view of the stake of amount being small and long period having been lapsed by now, fresh inquiry would not be required, particularly because the petitioner has retired from service of the respondent bank. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Bank tried to justified the remand order dated 14.10.1998 and submitted that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by such remand order and writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the private respondent-Khajan Singh, Mr. Shambhoo Rathore urged that the remand order Annex. 6 dated 14.10.1998 was justified since the order was passed without giving any opportunity to the respondent Khajan Singh. 7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute by either side that financial loss was not caused to the bank as the amount of Rs. 10,600/- was deposited back in the respondent bank, albeit with some delay. The inquiry was limited to the extent as to who kept the said money for the time being and deposited it with some delay in the respondent bank. Though, prima facie, this Court is 4 satisfied that the remand order passed by the Addl. Registrar of the Cooperative Societies vide Annex. The inquiry was limited to the extent as to who kept the said money for the time being and deposited it with some delay in the respondent bank. Though, prima facie, this Court is 4 satisfied that the remand order passed by the Addl. Registrar of the Cooperative Societies vide Annex. 6 dated 14.10.1998 does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, in the interest of justice, it is found that after a long lapse of 20 years, such inquiry may not subserve the substantial purpose, 5 therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served now, if fresh inquiry is made pursuant to remand order Annex. 6 dated 14.10.1998. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned order Annex. 6 dated 14.10.1998 and it is directed that no. fresh inquiry will now be held in the matter against either of the parties. No costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.Writ Petition Disposed of as Above. *******