ORDER : Shivashankar Amarannavar, J. 1. By consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 03.09.2019 passed in Application No. 2347/2017 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') at Bengaluru wherein the Tribunal has declined to quash the memorandum of charges dated 09.03.2017 bearing No. Uplok-1/DE/187/2017/ARE-10 issued by respondent No. 2 in a departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner and two others pursuant to entrustment of the same by respondent No. 1. 3. Petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer in the office of PWD, Vijayapura at the relevant time. In the year 2010 a person by name Ashok Patil who called himself as Editor of SNEHAVANI, Belgaum published a news item that in the execution of the works desilting of Bellary nala starting from Yallur village which flows to a length of 26.20 KMs at ground level and work of desilting of nala to a depth of 1.33 mtrs taken up during April 2007 to February 2008 at sanctioned estimate for Rs. 3.77 crores there was loss to the Government because of the negligence of the officials of PWD. 3.1. The Government of Karnataka, Department of Police, namely, Inspector General of Police (Vigilance), Water Resources Department conducted a detailed investigation and internal enquiry in that regard and gave opinion that said allegations are false and at any rate the petitioner and other engineers cannot be said to be responsible for the same nor they can be said to have been negligent or there being any dereliction of duty by them in that regard. 3.2. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Quality Control Division, Dharwad had also conducted inspection from 18.10.2008 and 30.11.2008 and had held that there was a minor deviation of 6.62% and the said deviation must have occurred for the reason that survey was conducted after one year from the date of completion of work. 3.3. On 29.04.2011 the said news paper editor addressed a letter to the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru stating that he had lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta on 01.03.2010 and he was again sending photographs and other relevant material to show that situation had not improved and there was no work satisfaction in the desilting of nala. 3.3. On 29.04.2011 the said news paper editor addressed a letter to the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru stating that he had lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta on 01.03.2010 and he was again sending photographs and other relevant material to show that situation had not improved and there was no work satisfaction in the desilting of nala. Therefore, the Karnataka Lokayukta in terms of the said complaint had again gone into detailed investigation/enquiry. The Karnataka Lokayukta on examination of entire material and after preparing a report has clearly concluded that allegations made against the petitioner herein and others was only an imagination and said allegations were not proved. 3.4. The Karnataka Lokayukta again took up the very same issue in the year 2016 and caused notice to petitioner and others dated 29.09.2016 calling for comments on the allegation made by Sri Ashok Patil, the news paper editor in his complaint. Petitioner had replied to the said notice and submitted that proceedings be dropped in view of earlier reports. The Upalokayukta on 16.12.2016 sent report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the Act') indicating that proceedings would not be dropped and that action should be continued under the Act. 3.5. Thereafter, by order dated 18.01.2017 the Government Secretary, Minor Irrigation, Government of Karnataka, entrusted the matter to the Upalokayukta, Bengaluru under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 to investigate the matter, hold enquiry and submit a report. 4. When things stood thus, respondent No. 2 issued charge memo dated 09.03.2017 in respect of the alleged misconduct committed during the year 2007-08. Petitioner challenged the said charge memo dated 09.03.2017 issued by respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal and sought for quashing of the same. 4.1. In the application among other grounds petitioner contended that respondents have taken nine long years to initiate departmental enquiry against him and he is not at all responsible for the misconduct. 4.2. The interest of the petitioner is jeopardized and his right of defence was taken away by inordinate delay in initiating the departmental enquiry. 4.3. It is further contended that Articles of Charges came to be issued on 09.03.2017 and the alleged incident has taken place in the year 2007-08 and no reasons have been assigned by the State in not initiating proceedings at the first instance i.e., during 2007-08. 4.3. It is further contended that Articles of Charges came to be issued on 09.03.2017 and the alleged incident has taken place in the year 2007-08 and no reasons have been assigned by the State in not initiating proceedings at the first instance i.e., during 2007-08. He would also contend that complaint came to be filed by one Mr. Ashok Patil in the year 2010 upon which Vigilance department held an enquiry and submitted a report in the year 2010 (Annexure-A2) itself stating thereunder that difference of deviation in work of 6.62% must have occurred due to the reason that there was a long delay of one year in conducting survey and issuing report from the date of alleged work. This fact itself indicates that there is no fault on the part of petitioner. It is further contended that even thereafter, Lokayukta had submitted a report on 08.05.2013/22.05.2013 (Annexure-A4) wherein it has been categorically held that allegations made in the complaint are false and it has been further held that petitioner and others have not committed any misconduct as per said report dated 08.05.2013/22.05.2013 (Annexure-A4). Hence, it is contended that proceedings ought to be quashed on the ground of delay and laches, apart from the fact that even on merits, there is no verifiable material to attribute any lapse to the petitioner. 4.4. Respondents on service of notice contended that delay, if any, in initiation of departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner and others is due to administrative reasons and it is not a fit case to quash the articles of charges issued against the petitioner. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the application. 4.5. Tribunal on consideration of entire material placed before it has arrived at a conclusion that nature of allegations made against the petitioner and the gravity of misconduct alleged against him also requires to be noticed while considering prayer and held that it is not a fit case to quash the articles of charges dated 09.03.2017 issued by the respondents/Accordingly, by the impugned order the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset, contended that admittedly the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner relates back to the year 2007-08 and charge memo is dated 09.03.2017. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset, contended that admittedly the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner relates back to the year 2007-08 and charge memo is dated 09.03.2017. The respondents have slept over the matter for over a period of nine years and petitioner's right of defence is also taken away on account of inordinate delay in initiating the enquiry proceedings. He would further contend that all the charges leveled against petitioner had met the litmus test in which the petitioner and his colleagues had got clean chit twice, once by Vigilance and second time by the Karnataka Lokayukta itself, have again been drawn into baseless and reckless articles of charges. He further contends that respondents have not explained the delay of nine long years. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D., T.N. Housing Board and others reported in : 2005 (6) SCC 636 . 6. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for respondents, supporting the impugned order of the Tribunal, submitted that having regard to the nature and gravity of allegations made and in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in issuing the charge sheet. The Tribunal, on consideration of entire material on record, has rightly declined to quash the charge memo dated 09.03.2017 and same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also have gone through the material placed before us. 8. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the charge memo dated 09.03.2017 issued by respondent No. 2 in a departmental enquiry initiated against him pursuant to the entrustment of the said-enquiry by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 18.01.2017. Admittedly charges leveled against the petitioner relate back to the misconduct for the period between 2007-08. 8. Petitioner has sought for quashing of the charge memo dated 09.03.2017 issued by respondent No. 2 in a departmental enquiry initiated against him pursuant to the entrustment of the said-enquiry by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 18.01.2017. Admittedly charges leveled against the petitioner relate back to the misconduct for the period between 2007-08. On the complaint by one Sri Ashok Patil, editor of SNEHAVANI Kannada daily, Belgaum dated 01.03.2010 the Government of Karnataka, Department of Police, namely, Inspector General of Police (Vigilance), Water Resources Department, had held a detailed investigation and internal enquiry and gave a report that said allegations are false and petitioner and other engineers cannot be said to be responsible for the same; nor they can be said to have gone into negligence or dereliction of duty in that regard. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Quality Control Division, Dharwad, has also conducted inspection from 18.10.2008 to 30.11.2008 and ultimately had opined that there was minor deviation of 6.62% in measurement and said deviation might have occurred for the reason that survey was conducted after one year from the date of completion of project. On 29.04.2011 the said news paper editor had addressed a letter to the Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru stating that he had already lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta on 01.03.2010 and had sent photographs alleging that situation had not improved and there was no work satisfaction in desilting of the nala. Thereafter, the Karnataka Lokayukta in terms of the said complaint had gone into detailed investigation/enquiry and prepared a report dated 08.05.2013 to the effect that it is not fair to arrive at a conclusion that work executed is bad or poor. The Karnataka Lokayukta again took up the very same issue in the year 2016 and caused notice dated 29.09.2016 calling upon comments from petitioner and his co-employees. Petitioner had replied to the said notice and had requested for dropping the proceedings. The Upalokayukta had sent a report under Section 12(3) of the Act recommending to initiate disciplinary proceedings against petitioner and others. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order of the Government dated 18.01.2017 enquiry was initiated by respondent No. 2 and the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-10, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, was intimated to hold departmental enquiry as per order dated 06.02.2017. Articles of charges dated 09.03.2017 came to be issued against the petitioner. Thereafter, in pursuance of the order of the Government dated 18.01.2017 enquiry was initiated by respondent No. 2 and the Additional Registrar of Enquiries-10, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, was intimated to hold departmental enquiry as per order dated 06.02.2017. Articles of charges dated 09.03.2017 came to be issued against the petitioner. As already pointed out misconduct is for the period 2007-08. Charge memo is dated 09.03.2017 which is nearly after 9 years of the alleged misconduct. This is not disputed in the case. According to the petitioner the respondents have not explained the inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings. The delay has jeopardized the interest of the petitioner and his right of defence would also been taken away on account of inordinate delay in initiating proceedings. 9. In the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. M.D., T.N. Housing Board and others relying on two other reported decisions, namely, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh reported in : 1990 Supp. SCC 738 and in the case of State of A.P. Vs. N. Radhakrishnan reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 , at paragraph No. 19 of the later case it is held by Apex Court as under: "It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the Court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of change, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of change, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations. This Court held that there was hardly any explanation worth consideration as to why the delay occurred. In the circumstances, this Court held that the Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated 31.07.1995 and directing the State to promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos dated 27.10.1995 and 01.06.1996. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed." In the case of UCO Bank and others Vs. Rajendra Singh Shukla, reported in : (2018) 14 SCC 92 the Apex Court at paragraph No. 12 has held as under: "12. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, it is necessary for us to highlight a few facts of which were brought to our notice during the course of submissions made by the learned Counsel. The first issue of concern is the enormous delay of about 7 years in issuing a charge-sheet against Shukla. There is no explanation for this unexplained delay. It appears that some internal discussions were going on within the Bank but that it took the Bank 7 years to make up its mind is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. On this ground itself, the charge-sheet against Shukla is liable to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its issuance." 10. It appears that some internal discussions were going on within the Bank but that it took the Bank 7 years to make up its mind is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. On this ground itself, the charge-sheet against Shukla is liable to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its issuance." 10. In the aforesaid judgment, Apex Court came to a conclusion that allowing the respondents to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at that distance of time would be prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher Government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against the government employee should therefore be avoided not only in the interest of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interest of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employee. It is also held that it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry as appellant therein had already suffered enough and more on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant therein was due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings and it would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. 11. In the instant case, alleged misconduct is for the year 2007-08. Charge memo is dated 09.03.2017, that is, nearly after nine years of the alleged misconduct. This inordinate delay is not explained. Departmental proceedings at this distance of time would be prejudicial to the petitioner. That apart two (2) authorities have already held that deviation of 6.62% might have occurred for the reason that survey has been conducted after one year from the date of completion of work vide report of the Vigilance wing dated 26.10.2010 (Annexure-A2) and the enquiry conducted by Karnataka Lokayukta Technical Division vide its report dated 08.05.2013 to 22.05.2013 (Annexure A4) it was held that allegations made in the complaint are not proved. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that charge memo issued to petitioner and consequential proceedings deserves to be quashed. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that charge memo issued to petitioner and consequential proceedings deserves to be quashed. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following; ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the Tribunal in Application No. 2347/2017 (Annexure - A) is set aside and Application No. 2347/2017 (Annexure - B) is allowed by granting the prayer sought for thereunder. (iii) Articles of charge dated 09.03.2017 (Annexure - A9) and also consequential order of entrustment dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure - A8) is hereby quashed insofar as petitioner is concerned. (iv) No order as to costs. Petition Allowed