ORDER : 1. This applicant in Application No. 3572/2011, on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short), has come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 21.6.2018, passed in the said application which was confirmed by the very same authority in Review Application No. 101/2018, which is disposed of by order dated 11.7.2018. 2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under: Sri. A.T. Kulkarni, who is aged about 70 years as on the date of filing the writ petition, was First Division Store Keeper in PWD, Bengaluru Division. It is stated that between 1987- 1991, he has committed misappropriation of materials valued to an extent of Rs. 65,953.40/- as could be seen from Annexure-A2 dated 16.11.2006. 3. It is in this background, proceedings was initiated against him by issuing show cause notice and charge memo dated 25.1.2007. The records would disclose that even before the charge memo was issued to him on 25.1.2007, based on inter-departmental communication dated 2.12.2006 vide Annexure-A3, the petitioner herein who received charge memo vide Anenxure-A7, has submitted his reply vide Annexure-A4 dated 2.12.2006. However, the said objection was not considered and the proceedings initiated against him ended up in passing an order in the enquiry initiated, holding him guilty of the charges leveled against him. 4. It is seen that in the meanwhile, the value of the goods which was misappropriated by him between 1987-1991 had increased in value as could be seen in Appendix-1 to 3 to Annexure-A7 indicating that their value as on the date of issuance of charge-sheet was Rs. 1,59,455.50/-. 5. It is in this background, the order impugned before the Tribunal which is Order bearing No.....300/2007, Bengaluru dated 28.01.2011 vide Annexure-A14 was passed in holding him guilty of the offence alleged against him in causing loss to the Department to the extent of Rs. 1,59,455.50/-. 5. It is in this background, the order impugned before the Tribunal which is Order bearing No.....300/2007, Bengaluru dated 28.01.2011 vide Annexure-A14 was passed in holding him guilty of the offence alleged against him in causing loss to the Department to the extent of Rs. 1,59,455.50/- which was ordered to be recovered from him with interest at 8% in terms of Rule 214(1)(b) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules and further punishment was also imposed vide Rule 214(1)(a) of Karnataka Civil Services Rules in withholding 10% on his pension for a period of two years which was subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in Application No. 3572/2011 where the grounds which were urged were that the proceedings initiated against him is beyond thirty years from the date of the alleged misconduct was seen. Therefore, the same could not have been initiated and there is serious lapse on the part of the Government in initiating proceedings belatedly. Therefore, the same is required to be quashed. 6. However, the said argument was not accepted by the Tribunal and had proceeded to dismiss the application by its Order dated 21.06.2018, against which, review was also sought in R.A. No. 101/2018 which also came to be dismissed vide Order dated 11.07.2018. It is these two orders and the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.01.2011 vide Annexure-A14 to this writ petition are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition, relying upon two Judgments, one rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 44092/2013 in the matter of H.R. Jayadevappa vs. State of Karnataka and Another disposed of by Order dated 19.02.2014 and another unreported Judgment rendered by Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P. (M.D.) No. 9981/2018 and W.M.P. (MD) No. 9127/2018 in the matter of P. Kannan vs. The Engineer-in-Chief (Buildings) disposed of by Order dated 22.03.2019 and tried to assert that the facts of this case are squarely covered by the Judgment rendered therein as he would try to demonstrate before this Court. The charge memo in the instant case is issued in the year 2007 for the offence said to have been committed during 1987- 1991 which is after sixteen years whereas in the matter of H.R. Jayadevappa referred to supra, where charge memo is issued after twelve years, the same is held to be invalid and similar view is taken by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the matter of P. Kannan (supra) where charge memo is issued after seven years six months. Therefore, by relying upon these two Judgments, charge memo issued to the petitioner herein on 25.01.2007 vide Annexure-A7 is required to be quashed and consequently the Order of the Tribunal in the application as well as review application are also liable to be set aside. 7. When the facts of the case are looked into with reference to the Judgments referred to above, it is clearly seen that the offence which was committed by the petitioner has come to the knowledge belatedly in the year 2006. Immediately thereafter, necessary steps are taken to communicate between several departments where said irregularity is committed. In the process, it is seen that the State has not committed any delay in ascertaining the fact of misappropriation and immediately thereafter, charge memo is issued to him in the year 2007. Therefore, in the fact situation, though the offence referred to in the charge memo of the years between 1987-1991, the committal of such offence having come to the knowledge off the department in the year 2006, charge memo which is issued within one year there from, cannot be found fault with, in as much as, the same is being done with swift action with timely inquiry after coming to know of the alleged offence. 8. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid two Judgments which are relied upon by the petitioner herein would not come to his aid. Even otherwise also, we respectfully beg to differ with the earlier two Judgments. If the same is accepted, merely because charge memo is not filed within time does not take away the offence committed by the delinquent employee. Even otherwise also, we respectfully beg to differ with the earlier two Judgments. If the same is accepted, merely because charge memo is not filed within time does not take away the offence committed by the delinquent employee. It is needless to state that corruption is so rampant in the Government Department that if the Officer who is in-charge of issuing such charge memo, is hand in glove with delinquent employee, then there is every possibility that he would deliberately turn a blind eye to this kind of act and his conduct in not taking appropriate steps at the earliest point of time should not be a blessing in disguise to delinquent employee, to seek at a later stage that belated initiation of proceedings against him is bad in law and the same is required to be quashed. Therefore, that line of argument is not accepted by this Court. 9. With such observation, writ petition filed by the applicant in Application No. 3572/2011 and Review Application No. 101/2018 on the file of the Tribunal, is hereby dismissed.