ORDER : P. Naveen Rao, J. 1. In WP No. 18611 of 2017, petitioner challenges the charge-memo, dated 28.2.2017 and seeks consequential direction to grant promotion to the post of Tahsildar, as per the placement assigned in the panel for the year 2011-12. During the pendency of above writ petition, Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Not satisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer, by proceedings dated 6.11.2019, the District Collector appointed another Enquiry Officer to conduct de novo enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. In WP No. 5512 of 2020, petitioner challenges the said order dated 6.11.2019 and seeks further direction that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Tahsildar on par with his juniors by duly finalizing the departmental proceedings based on the enquiry report submitted on 31.12.2018. In both writ petitions, petitioner is the same. By this common order these writ petitions are disposed of. 2. To the extent relevant for the issues raised in these two writ petitions, the facts are as under: Petitioner is working as Deputy Tahsildar and is now aspiring for promotion as Tahsildar. According to the petitioner, in seniority list of Deputy Tahsildars of Medak District, and in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars, eligible for promotion for the panel year 2011-12, his name was shown at Sl. No. 20. In the panel approved by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration (CCLA), vide his Reference No. Ser. II(1)/789/2016, dated 8.3.2016, petitioner name was included at Sl. No. 149. In March, 2016, promotions were made upto the Sl. No. 120 in the said approved panel. During the subsistence of panel approved on 18.3.2016, as a consequence to re-organization of the Revenue Districts, formation of new Mandals and Revenue Divisions and Districts, 2109 posts of Tahsildars were created. Petitioner claims that he ought to have been granted promotion in those vacancies. On 1.5.2017, orders were issued granting promotion to the petitioner as Tahsildar and posted as Superintendent in the Office of the District Collector, Medak, but this promotion was not given effect. Petitioner alleges that he was denied promotion on the ground that on 28.2.2017, charge-memo was drawn and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. On 20.12.2017, this Court granted interim orders directing consideration of the petitioner for promotion, if he is otherwise eligible, and if there is no prohibition in consideration of his case for promotion. Petitioner alleges that he was denied promotion on the ground that on 28.2.2017, charge-memo was drawn and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. On 20.12.2017, this Court granted interim orders directing consideration of the petitioner for promotion, if he is otherwise eligible, and if there is no prohibition in consideration of his case for promotion. On 6.11.2019 proceedings were issued appointing another Enquiry Officer to conduct de novo enquiry. 3. In these two writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioner is against inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, not finalizing the disciplinary proceedings based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, ordering de novo enquiry and on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending, not granting promotion to him as per his turn and seeks consequential direction to set aside disciplinary proceedings and to grant promotion on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits. 4. Heard Mr. D. Balakishan Rao, learned Counsel for petitioner, and Mr. N. Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for respondents. 5. On the validity of charge-memo, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that disciplinary proceedings are liable to be set aside on the sole ground that there was inordinate delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. On the alleged incident of the year 2005, charge-memo was drawn for the first time on 28.2.2017. Thus, on a stale issue, proceedings were initiated, after 12 years, and no justification is shown for such inordinate delay. Learned Counsel further submitted that allegation made against the petitioner in the charge-memo is on trivial issue i.e., misplacement of file relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Mr. K.E. John Wesiy. According to the learned Counsel, petitioner has submitted his explanation on 20.3.2017 denying the allegations; expressly taking the stand that as there was heavy work load there was no occasion to concentrate on individual files; that the file was circulated to the higher authorities; and that it was not sent back to the section headed by him and, therefore, the allegation that he was responsible for misplacing the file was erroneous. 6. According to the learned Counsel, as per the G.O. Ms. No. 679 dated 1.11.2008, disciplinary enquiry has to be completed on simple allegations, within three months and whenever serious allegations are made within six months. 6. According to the learned Counsel, as per the G.O. Ms. No. 679 dated 1.11.2008, disciplinary enquiry has to be completed on simple allegations, within three months and whenever serious allegations are made within six months. In the instant case, allegation is not serious and therefore ought to have been completed in three months, but they are kept pending for more than three years. 7. He would submit that on due consideration of the explanation and on due verification of the records, the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 31.12.2018 clearly recorded finding that petitioner was not responsible for the alleged charge and that he did not misplace the file. He would submit that on trivial issue and more so when the Enquiry Officer clearly recorded a finding that the petitioner is not responsible for misplacement of the file, there is no justification to continue the disciplinary proceedings, even assuming, initiation was not erroneous. 8. According to the learned Counsel, the reason assigned for ordering the de novo enquiry is not sustainable in law. It is also contrary to Rules 20 & 21 of the Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (Rules, 1991). According to the learned Counsel for petitioner, the disciplinary authority can order de novo enquiry only if he is satisfied that the proceedings - were not properly conducted or procedure required by the Rules, 1991 were not observed by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority erred in holding that the Enquiry Officer has not slated whether the charges are proved or not. This observation of the disciplinary authority is contrary to the report of the Enquiry Officer and the reasons assigned therein are not in accordance with the provisions in Rule 20(2) of the Rules, 1991. 9. Learned Counsel for petitioner further contended that even assuming that the disciplinary proceedings were validly initiated and continued and there is no inordinate delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, denial of promotion to the petitioner as per the recommendations of the DPC, approved by the competent authority, was erroneous. The panel was approved in March, 2016 and the panel was operated by giving promotions to 120 persons included in the panel. On the date of approval of panel, effecting the promotions and when the new posts were created, disciplinary proceedings were not initiated against the petitioner and they were set in motion only on 28.2.2017. The panel was approved in March, 2016 and the panel was operated by giving promotions to 120 persons included in the panel. On the date of approval of panel, effecting the promotions and when the new posts were created, disciplinary proceedings were not initiated against the petitioner and they were set in motion only on 28.2.2017. Therefore, deferring the petitioner claim for promotion on the ground of initiation of disciplinary proceedings subsequently is clearly erroneous and illegal. He would therefore submit that denial of promotion when it was due was illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. 10. The learned Government Pleader would submit that due to willful conduct of the petitioner taking action against Mr. Wesley got delayed. Deliberately petitioner misplaced the file. As soon as matter came to the notice of the disciplinary authority, action was initiated against petitioner. He would therefore submit that there was no delay. He would submit that as a custodian of official records, misplacing the file in his custody is a grave misconduct. He would further submit that enquiry report is not complete unless the Enquiry Officer records his findings. As no findings are recorded by the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority has to order for fresh enquiry. 11. Following issues arise for consideration : (i) Whether disciplinary proceedings are vitiated on the ground of delay in initiation and/or conclusion? (ii) Whether the decision to order de novo enquiry is within the competence of the disciplinary authority? (iii) Whether the denial of promotion to the petitioner on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings is legal? and (iv) Whether petitioner was illegally denied from joining and working in the promotion post on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the time he was granted promotion and therefore not effecting promotion was valid? Issue (i): 12. The relationship between employer and employee is based on trust and confidence. Apart from absolute loyalty, employer expects employee to be honest, truthful and hardworking. He rewards employee who fulfills his criteria, encourages him by providing him additional financial incentive, elevation of status, higher responsibilities, so on. At the same time, he cannot tolerate insubordination, misbehavior, corruption, disloyalty and poor output. Whenever these aspects come to light, employer would initiate disciplinary action and visit appropriate penal consequences which may be minor or major. Depending on the nature of misconduct alleged he may also lodge complaint with the Police. At the same time, he cannot tolerate insubordination, misbehavior, corruption, disloyalty and poor output. Whenever these aspects come to light, employer would initiate disciplinary action and visit appropriate penal consequences which may be minor or major. Depending on the nature of misconduct alleged he may also lodge complaint with the Police. Conduct of the employee may not be confined to four corners of the employment and employer may monitor behaviour of the employee outside the employment which may reflect on the personality of the employee or impact his performance. 13. From the stand point of employee as long as he is in the good books of his employer he will have smooth sailing. Problems would arise only when employer loses confidence or develops distrust or apprehends of misconduct. When a misconduct is alleged employee is bound to face disciplinary action and in a given case criminal proceedings. If that stage arises, in addition to several other aspects, his grievance would be two-fold: (1) employer is harassing him for a minor lapse/incident, that took place long ago; (2) even if allegation is proved, if concluded within a time frame, it may result in minor punishment such as censure, warning, withholding of increment etc., and he would undergo such punishment with humility and canyon his work, but delay in conclusion would have more serious consequences, intended or unintended including depriving promotion, differing financial benefits/in case of retired employee denying retirement benefits, etc.. He may also have a grievance that delay in initiation and conclusion, causes grave prejudice to him in defending against allegations; difficulty in securing evidence, oral or documentary. 14. Telangana State Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 (CCA Rules) deal with all aspects of disciplinary proceedings against an employee. The Rules prescribe elaborate procedure to conduct disciplinary proceedings from the stage of initiation till passing of final orders, preferring of appeals and revisions and also prescribes punishments that can be imposed. Rule 20 of the Rules also prescribes time line from stage to stage in the enquiry. Administrative instructions stipulate time line to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. However, the Rules and the administrative instructions are silent on time frame to initiate disciplinary action on alleged delinquency against serving employee, whereas certain limitations are imposed against retired employees in Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Thus, there is no statutory embargo on when to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 15. Administrative instructions stipulate time line to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. However, the Rules and the administrative instructions are silent on time frame to initiate disciplinary action on alleged delinquency against serving employee, whereas certain limitations are imposed against retired employees in Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Thus, there is no statutory embargo on when to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 15. Invariably there is delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Initiation takes months or years from the date of incident and so also conclusion. Delay in initiation can be for genuine reasons. The incident may come to light much later; many employees are involved in the same delinquency; lot of time is consumed in gathering information; many times intra-departmental correspondence consumes more time; when alleged delinquency involves employees belong to more than one department/one unit/one disciplinary authority processing itself consumes lot of time. Further, on an alleged misconduct, if, simultaneously, disciplinary action and criminal prosecution is set in motion, disciplinary authority may wait for completion of investigation by Police before he would decide to proceed or differ/drop the disciplinary action. But, in many instances, it is tardy and lethargic approach of the concerned authorities that causes delay in setting in motion the disciplinary action. Many times, employees allege that just about the time he is due for promotion, disciplinary action is set in motion only to deprive him promotion or just about the time of retirement to hold up his retirement benefits. 16. Though proceedings may have been initiated immediately but they are dragged on for months together/years together. This may happen because several employees of same Department/different departments are involved; documents and witnesses are more; employee(s) do not cooperate or litigate; frequent change of Enquiry Officers; matters entrusted to Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings or Commissioner of enquiries, but they do not function. Many times just to harass the employee proceedings are kept in the cold storage. 17. One other aspect on which employees agitate is delay in disposal of' disciplinary proceedings and in the meantime ignoring the employee for promotion and/or not granting other service benefits. Though the Government, by way of administrative instructions, prescribed three months to complete enquiry in case of petty allegations, and six months in case of grave allegations, this time line is never adhered to and disciplinary proceedings are kept pending for months together/years together. Many a time the delay is attributable to employer. 18. Though the Government, by way of administrative instructions, prescribed three months to complete enquiry in case of petty allegations, and six months in case of grave allegations, this time line is never adhered to and disciplinary proceedings are kept pending for months together/years together. Many a time the delay is attributable to employer. 18. Thus, more often than not employees knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against delay in initiation and/or continuation and denial of service benefits on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings, such as promotion, increments, financial upgradation, retirement benefits, as the case may be. Volume of cases and the decisions in those cases reflect the litigative gamit of this branch of service disputes. 19. There are two competing claims. On the one side is the employer's desire to enforce discipline, not to dole out benefits of elevation in status etc., or post-retirement benefits as the case may be, if he commits a misconduct in the past. On the other spectrum is the concern of employee in involving him in disciplinary proceedings/in continuing him under the cloud for past misconduct, without conducting/concluding proceedings and without affording opportunity to defend himself and depriving him service benefits to which he is legitimately entitled. Whenever such matters come up before the Court, the Court is not only required to consider these competing claims but also look into the aspect of public interest, vis-à-vis allegations of misconduct, having regard to public trust doctrine in public employment, and in a given case adopt balancing process. 20. Per se disciplinary proceedings cannot be said as vitiated only on the ground of delay in initiation. It all depends on facts of a given case. However, if the delay is long the burden is on employer to explain reasons for delay. 21. On both aspects, i.e., delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings and delay in conclusion, we are not in virgin territory. The precedent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down well lit path leading to appreciation of the issue in right perspective. Suffice to note that precedent law, while emphasizing speedy disposal of disciplinary proceedings, leaves it to the writ Court to assess the issue depending upon the facts of a given case. 22. At this stage it is expedient to consider precedent decisions. 23. Suffice to note that precedent law, while emphasizing speedy disposal of disciplinary proceedings, leaves it to the writ Court to assess the issue depending upon the facts of a given case. 22. At this stage it is expedient to consider precedent decisions. 23. Whenever, grave allegations are made, such as embezzlement/misappropriation, falsification of records, etc., departmental proceedings need not be set aside only on the ground of delay in initiation or conclusion (Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Faizabad v. Sachindra Nath Pandey, (1995) 3 SCC 134 and Secretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Dept v. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157 ). Disciplinary proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the ground that they were initiated at a belated stage and could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee (Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chander, (2012) 11 SCC 565 ). 24. In State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 , while emphasizing the need to conduct disciplinary proceedings, soon after discovery of irregularities, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: "9. .......If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the Court may well interfere and quash the charges. But, how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the Court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the Court has to indulge in a process of balancing......." 25. In Government of A.P. v. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14 SCC 49 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down parameters when Court may accept plea of delay against continuing disciplinary proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "12. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefore. Each case must be determined on its own facts. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefore. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are: (1) where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee; (2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee. Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the Inquiry Officer." 26. In Union of India v. Udai Bhan Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reviewed precedent decision on delay in initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held, the aspect of delay must be considered in the context of admitted facts (Paragraph 17). 27. In Secretary, Forest Department and others v. Abdur Rasul Choudhary, (2009) 7 SCC 305 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court succinctly explained when Court should interfere. Employee was served charge-memo dated 13.8.1987. Allegations were on excess payment to contractor for personal gain and financial loss to Government and falsification of accounts. Employee retired on 31.3.1995. He filed OA No. 3963 of 1999 praying to direct respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay. The Tribunal did not agree to grant the prayer to drop the disciplinary proceedings, but directed to complete the departmental enquiry within six months by its order dated 1.8.2003. Challenging the said decision, he preferred writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition. One of the issues considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is, whether the delay in completing the domestic enquiry proceedings would be fatal to the proceedings? 28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held: "16. The next issue is with regard to delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings. In our view the delay in concluding the domestic enquiry proceedings is not fatal to the proceedings. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should be permitted to continue." (Emphasis supplied) 29. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should be permitted to continue." (Emphasis supplied) 29. In the case on hand, the substance of the allegation against the petitioner is that disciplinary file of another employee was misplaced by petitioner in the year 2006 when he was working as Senior Assistant. On the said allegation, charge-memo was drawn on 28.2.2017, i.e., more than eleven years after the incident. Even after three years, the proceedings are not concluded. 30. The gravamen of the charge is, on a request made by the Siddipet District Collector to furnish original records pertaining to disciplinary case against Ex-Land Acquisition Officer by name K.E. John Wesly, while verifying the record of the A3 section of the Collectorate, it was noticed that as Senior Assistant of A3 section petitioner received the UO note of LA Section on 17.5.2005 recorded in personal register for the years 2005 and 2006 but physically file was missing and from the year 2007 onwards the file was not traceable. It is therefore alleged that petitioner misused his official position and misplaced the file with mala fide intention. Therefore, the disciplinary case against Mr. Wesly could not be concluded. 31. From the Annexure-I of the Charge-Memo, it appears that certain Land Acquisition OPs. were not effectively contested by concerned staff and therefore on 14.5.2005, the Medak District Collector informed the Government that Mr. Wesly was responsible and disciplinary action should be taken against him. On 23.7.1999, the Commissioner for Social Welfare requested to initiate disciplinary action against Mr. Wesley. 32. In substance, alleging that a particular file was misplaced by petitioner while he was working in the 'C' section of the Collectorate in the years 2005 and 2006, Charge-Memo was drawn on 28.2.2017. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. During the enquiry, petitioner informed that file is available in A3 section. The incumbent 'C' section Assistant appeared before the Enquiry Officer and stated that file is available. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. During the enquiry, petitioner informed that file is available in A3 section. The incumbent 'C' section Assistant appeared before the Enquiry Officer and stated that file is available. Apart from other aspects, petitioner has also pleaded before the Enquiry Officer that he circulated the file on 1.6.2005, was returned to section on 15.7.2005 from the Joint Collector and file was handed over to the Office Superintendent for discussion with Joint Collector; discussion took place and he has recorded in the file as a note on the discussion, but file was not returned to the section. He expressed his inability to say anything more after such a long time. On going through the record, the Enquiry Officer found whatever is stated by the petitioner is born out of record. 33. The proceedings of the Commissioner for Social Welfare were drawn on 23.7.1999 requesting the competent authority to take disciplinary action against Mr. Wesley. The counter-affidavit is blissfully silent as to why there was delay in initiating of action against Mr. Wesley and what transpired between 1999 to 2005 and 2005 to 2017 and what is the stage of the action. It appears to be a case of covering up the lapses on the part of concerned persons in taking action against Mr. Wesley, by throwing the blame on petitioner. It appears, no effort was made to trace the file before initiating action against petitioner, whereas the finding of Enquiry Officer would show file was very much available in A3 section. 34. Be that as it may, allegation was file was not traceable, but it was traced and available in A3 section. Charge-memo does not elaborate on allegation of the mala fide intention. There is no allegation of collusion of petitioner with Mr. Wesley to escape disciplinary action. That being so, nothing remains in the disciplinary action. 35. There is no end in site to the petitioner. Adding to the misery of facing disciplinary action after 10 years, even though Enquiry Officer finds that file is available in A3 section, merely because the Enquiry Officer has not recorded as to whether charge is proved or not, the disciplinary authority resorts to hold de novo enquiry by appointing another Enquiry Officer. Adding to the misery of facing disciplinary action after 10 years, even though Enquiry Officer finds that file is available in A3 section, merely because the Enquiry Officer has not recorded as to whether charge is proved or not, the disciplinary authority resorts to hold de novo enquiry by appointing another Enquiry Officer. Apart from the fact that no such power is traceable to CCA Rules, no' reasons are assigned to take such a decision and prolong the agony to the petitioner. Further, even if what is stated is accepted, it is minor irregularity. The disciplinary authority has ample power to deal with the situation and for this minor lapse that Enquiry Officer did not record his conclusion, there is no need to subject the petitioner to undergo the rigmarole of full-fledged enquiry, that too after fifteen years. 36. In the counter-affidavit, no reasons are assigned for the delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. When disciplinary action is set in motion after 10 years, the competent authority has to explain clearly the reasons for delay. Certainly ten years is unreasonably long period on a trivial issue, more so when there is no allegation of collusion by the petitioner with Mr. Wesley to delay disciplinary action against him. Having regard to the chronology of, events and relevant aspects noted above, the conclusion is irresistible that the entire action smacks of arbitrary exercise of power and vindictive. 37. Petitioner succeeds on the 1st issue. The disciplinary proceedings against petitioner are set aside and the Writ Petition No. 18611 of 2017 is allowed. Petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits including promotion as Tahsildar from the date of promotion of his junior. In view of the judgment in WP No. 18611 of 2017, no further orders are required to be made in WP No. 5512 of 2020 and is accordingly disposed of. In view of the decision on the 1st issue, no findings are recorded on other issues. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.