JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. A.Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P.Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. This case was heard on 13.11.2018 at some length but since Mr. D. P. Borah sought some time to get instructions in the matter, the case was adjourned and directed to be listed today i.e. on 15.11.2018. Today, Mr. D.P. Borah submits that he has not been able to obtain any instructions from the Department. As such, the Court has no other option but to take up the matter for final disposal. 3. This is for the second time that the petitioner is before this Court. The earlier writ petition being WP(C) No.2966 of 2010 was filed seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to finalise the departmental proceeding that was drawn against him. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure-2), with a direction to the respondents to finalise the departmental proceeding without further delay. It was further observed that the admissible dues to be paid to the petitioner should be determined depending upon the outcome of the departmental proceeding. After the writ petition was disposed, the Director of Health Services (FW) i.e. the respondent No.3 passed a speaking order on 16.02.2015 (Annexure-3), stating that, depending upon the decision of the Government with regard to the misappropriation of Government money as alleged and also on the basis of the inquiry conducted in this regard, the departmental proceeding against the petitioner will be finalised. In other word, the decision of the Government was being awaited to finalise the departmental proceedings. 4. Despite passing of the speaking order dated 16.02.2015, the Departmental proceeding has remained unfinalised and therefore, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition once again. 5. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Upper Division Assistant (UDA) under the establishment of the Additional Chief Medical Officer & Health (FW) at Barpeta and he was assigned to work as a cashier in the said establishment. While he was discharging his duties as such, anomalies in cash held by the said establishment was found and upon such discovery, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 29.08.1998, pending drawl of the departmental proceeding against him. Besides, placing the petitioner under suspension, an FIR was filed on 29.08.1998 and accordingly, GR Case No. 1364 under Section 409 IPC was registered. Besides, placing the petitioner under suspension, an FIR was filed on 29.08.1998 and accordingly, GR Case No. 1364 under Section 409 IPC was registered. 6. The learned Trial Court, however, after finding no prima facie case against the petitioner at the time of considering the charge, discharged him from the liability under Section 409 of IPC by giving him the benefit of doubt. Be it stated herein that alongwith the petitioner, one Dr. Ganesh Ch. Sharma who was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer under the establishment of the Additional Chief Medical Officer & Health (FW) at Barpeta and against whom an FIR was also filed as well was too discharged by giving him the benefit of doubt. After the petitioner was discharged, his suspension was revoked in the year 2007 and thereafter, he retired from service on 31.12.2014 on attaining the age of superannuation. 7. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the communication dated 31.08.1998, whereby the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department, has forwarded a copy of the inquiry report to the Joint Director of Health Services, Barpeta. As per the inquiry report Dr. Ganesh Ch. Sharma was jointly responsible for the shortage in cash. The inquiry report appears to have been signed by one Sri G. Patowary, Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department. The respondent No.3 on 24.03.2017 has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein the communication dated 13.06.2007 made by the Director of Health Services (FW) to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare (A) Department has been annexed as Annexure-IV. From a perusal of the said communication it is seen that a departmental proceeding against the petitioner was drawn by the Director vide letter No.HSFW/86/06/3366 dated 20.02.2007 and reply to the show-cause under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India was asked from the petitioner. The reply submitted by the petitioner against the show-cause notice was received on 08.03.2007. Thereafter, the Additional Chief Medical and Health Officer (FW), Barpeta, was requested to send his views and comments on the reply to the show-cause. The said authority after examining the matter, submitted his comments and views vide letter No. DFWB/BAR/Esstt./show cause/07/686 dated 27.04.2007 by opining that both the petitioner as well as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer Dr. Ganesh Ch. Thereafter, the Additional Chief Medical and Health Officer (FW), Barpeta, was requested to send his views and comments on the reply to the show-cause. The said authority after examining the matter, submitted his comments and views vide letter No. DFWB/BAR/Esstt./show cause/07/686 dated 27.04.2007 by opining that both the petitioner as well as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer Dr. Ganesh Ch. Sharma were jointly responsible for misappropriation of Government money. It was also mentioned that an inquiry was conducted by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department with the assistance of the other officials. The report of the inquiry committee was communicated to the Joint Director of Health Services, Barpeta, vide Government letter No. HLA. 653/98/15 dated 31.08.1998, which was received from the Additional Chief Medical and Health Officer (FW), Barpeta, vide his letter dated 27.04.2007. The Director, therefore, requested the Government to go through the inquiry report and pass necessary orders on the alleged misappropriation of money while enclosing necessary documents with the report. 8. As may be noticed, the respondents have neither finalized the departmental proceedings against the petitioner nor have they filed any affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petition till date. Writ petition was filed on 13.03.2015 and notice was issued to the respondents on 20.03.2015. 9. It may further be noticed that during the pendency of the writ petition, Court vide order dated 03.06.2015 directed the respondents to grant provisional pension to the petitioner, since he retired from service on 31.12.2014 upon attaining the age of superannuation. However, as the direction was not complied with, the petitioner was led to file a contempt petition being Cont.Case(C) No.268 of 2016. It was during the pendency of the contempt petition that the order came to be complied with and consequently, the petitioner is only getting his provisional pension. 10. Mr. A.Y. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this Court: (i) Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. (2015) 16 SCC 415 (ii) State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429 (iii) Narendra Nath vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1987 (Supp) SCC 56 (iv) D.D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. (2015) 16 SCC 415 (ii) State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429 (iii) Narendra Nath vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1987 (Supp) SCC 56 (iv) D.D. Tewari (Dead) through Legal Representatives vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Ors. (2014) 8 SCC 894 (v) P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board 2005 (6) SCC 636 (vi) Bhagaban Ch. Sarmah. vs. State of Assam & Ors. 2017 (3) GLR 797 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. As may be noticed that despite the drawl of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner vide communication dated 20.02.2007, the same has not been completed till date. In the meantime, the petitioner has also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2014. The inquiry report dated 29.08.1999 annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-IV to the writ petition appears to be a preliminary inquiry report, inasmuch as, as per the communication dated 13.06.2007, departmental proceeding was drawn against the petitioner on 20.02.2007. Therefore, the question is as to whether any proper inquiry was ever conducted against the petitioner so that a logical conclusion can be drawn. Rule 22 (1) of the Assam Services Pension Rules, 1969 provides that continuation of departmental proceedings against the Government servant even after his retirement is permissible and in which case, a provisional pension not exceeding the maximum pension will be admissible on the basis of his qualifying service of the pensioner upto the date of retirement, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement, upto to the date immediately preceding, the date on which he was placed under suspension. However, no gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity will be payable to the employee until the conclusion of the proceeding. 13. In the case of PremNathBali(Supra),the Apex Court has held that it is duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. However, no gratuity or death-cum-retirement gratuity will be payable to the employee until the conclusion of the proceeding. 13. In the case of PremNathBali(Supra),the Apex Court has held that it is duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In a case where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry, it becomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry was concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee. By keeping such factors in mind, it was held that the departmental proceeding as far as possible should be concluded within 6 (six) months as an outer limit. However, where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable cause which arose during the proceeding, inquiry should be completed within a year. In the case of M. Padmanabhan Nair (Supra), the Apex Court has held that the Government is liable to pay penal interest to the pensioner due to the failure on the part of the Treasury Officer concerned delay for causing in the issuance of the last pay certificate of the pensioner. However, the State Government was given liberty to consider whether the concerned official should be directed to compensate the Government for the loss. In Harendra Nath (Supra), the interest awarded by the High Court with effect from the date of the institution of the writ petition was modified with a direction for payment of interest with effect from the date on which the pension and gratuity amount etc became due to the pensioner. In DD Tewari (Supra) it was held that the denial of interest from date of entitlement till its payment resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the given circumstances, interest @ 9% on delayed payment was awarded and to be paid within 6 weeks failing which, interest @ 18% p.a. will have to be paid. In P.V.Mahadevan (Supra)the Apex Court has held that there was inordinate delay initiating disciplinary action against the appellant and therefore, in the given circumstances, a direction to initiate the disciplinary proceeding will not be justified. Consequently, the charge memo against the official concerned was quashed. In P.V.Mahadevan (Supra)the Apex Court has held that there was inordinate delay initiating disciplinary action against the appellant and therefore, in the given circumstances, a direction to initiate the disciplinary proceeding will not be justified. Consequently, the charge memo against the official concerned was quashed. In the case of Bhagaban Chandra Sarmah (Supra),a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by referring to the various decisions of the Apex Court came to the conclusion that due to the delay in processing the pension, the petitioner will be entitled to recover interest calculated @ 9% per annum on the arrear pension and gratuity amount and the sum should be paid to him within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. As already noticed, the petitioner earlier filed WP(C) No.2966 of 2010 which was disposed of on 18.12.2014 with a direction to the respondents to finalise the departmental proceedings drawn against the petitioner without further delay and within the 3 (three) months time. However, as can be seen, the departmental proceeding has not been concluded till date. In that view of the matter, upon considering the conduct of the respondents and the case in its entirety, I find it to be a fit case for the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the departmental proceedings drawn against the petitioner vide letter No. HSFW/86/06/3366 dated 20.02.2007 issued by the Director of Health Services (FW) and the inquiry report dated 29.08.1999 of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department are hereby set aside and quashed. The respondents authority shall now process the regular pension of the petitioner and pay him all the retirement benefits including the gratuity, leave encashment etc. The respondents authority shall also calculate the arrear salary, dearness allowance due to the petitioner since his suspension with effect from 29.08.1998 till his superannuation on 31.12.2014 and thereafter, pay the sum to him after deducting the amount already paid to him if any. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the amount payable to him with effect from the date of filing of the second writ petition i.e. 13.03.2015. The entire exercise as directed shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and not later than within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. The entire exercise as directed shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and not later than within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of as allowed.