JUDGMENT : In this special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952, the State of Rajasthan is challenging the validity of the judgment dated 27.1.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 6269/2006 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the charge-sheet dated 2.1.2006. 2. As per brief facts of the case, the respondent Rajendra Gupta was appointed as Nurse Grade-II in the year 1986. In the year 1990 he was made under awaiting posting order and he was directed to report in the office of the Joint Director, Zone Jodhpur. The respondent-petitioner was posted in the office of CM&HO, Jodhpur from where he was transferred to the Primary Health Center, Kelansar, Phalodi, and subsequently transferred to Bangar Government Hospital, Pali. The respondent-petitioner was served with the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules on 2.8.2005 for the wilful absence from duty w.e.f. 19.4.1992 to 11.8.1993 when he was posted at Kharda, Tehsil Rohit, District Pali. Against the charge-sheet respondent-petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court in which a challenge was made to the charge-sheet on the ground that there is gross delay in taking disciplinary action for the alleged misconduct of wilful absence from duty, therefore, charge-sheet is not sustainable in law. 3. The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties finally allowed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 27.1.2015 and quashed the charge-sheet on the ground of delay while following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements. 4. The learned Addl. Advocate General vehemently argued that gross misconduct was committed by the respondent-petitioner when he remained absent from duty w.e.f. 19.4.1992 to 11.8.1993, therefore, as per rule 86(3) of the CCA Rules, 1958 the action was taken while issuing chare-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, therefore, therefore, there is no occasion to challenge by the petitioner solely on the ground of delay. 5. According to the learned Addl. Advocate General error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition only on the ground of delay for issuing charge-sheet. Therefore, it is prayed that the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 6. After hearing the learned Addl. Advocate General we have perused the judgment impugned and entire pleadings. 5. According to the learned Addl. Advocate General error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition only on the ground of delay for issuing charge-sheet. Therefore, it is prayed that the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. 6. After hearing the learned Addl. Advocate General we have perused the judgment impugned and entire pleadings. Undisputedly, the charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules vide charge memo dated 2.8.2005 for wilful absent from duty w.e.f. 19.4.1992 to 11.8.1993. The aforesaid fact loudly speaks that for alleged misconduct, no action was taken by the appellant department for the said period of absence from duty for more than 12 years. In case of State of M.P. v. Bani Singh reported in 1990 AIR (SC) 1308 and State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan reported in 1998 AIR (SCW) 1629 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if there is gross delay in taking disciplinary action then charge-sheet is not sustainable in law. 7. The aforesaid adjudication was further reiterated in the judgment reported in 2006 (2) JLJ 260 : M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India in which the law laid down in the case of Bani Singh (supra) was considered and the charge-sheet was quashed. The learned Single Judge while considering aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the charge-sheet dated 2.8.2005 issued and passed an order to fix the pay of the petitioner in accordance with the pay scale rules, therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference. 8. Consequently, this special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is hereby dismissed.