JUDGMENT : C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Order, dated 30.01.2020, passed in W.P. No.1865 of 2020, the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, and the Engineer-in-Chief, Tribal Welfare Office, preferred the present writ appeal. 2. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner filed the above Writ Petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings as per the time schedule fixed by the Government, and the inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings for the issues relating to 1998–1999 and onwards as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as under: (i) The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department in the year 1982 and later promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 1990. He continued as such till 31.10.1995. Subsequently, he was absorbed in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department vide Orders in G.O. Rt. No. 969 (SW) dated 09.10.1995. Later, he was promoted as Executive Engineer (Incharge) in the Office of Engineering-in-Chief and later promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer (Incharge) in the year 2013. After bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, he was appointed as Deputy Chief Engineer in the Office of ENC and retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016. (ii) It is stated that, though he retired from service on 30.06.2016, his pensionary benefits were not settled on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated while he was in employment. He made a representation on 10.02.2018 to the Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department and also to the Engineer-in-Chief, Tribal Welfare Department, requesting them to furnish list of cases in which the disciplinary proceedings are initiated and pending against him and also the stages of those cases. Vide letter, dated 12.03.2018, the Public Information Officer, Tribal Welfare Department, furnished list of cases and stage of proceedings pending against him. (iii) Having regard to the fact that these proceedings are pending since 2000 onwards, and the last one being the one, in which charge memo was issued in the year 2011, he submits that continuation of disciplinary proceedings against him would be contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the circumstances, he prays for quashing of all the disciplinary proceedings. In the circumstances, he prays for quashing of all the disciplinary proceedings. (iv) Vide Order, dated 30.01.2020, the learned Single Judge of this court disposed of the Writ Petition holding as under: “4. Hence, in the light of the above, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to conclude the enquiry pending against the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the enquiry proceedings shall stand quashed. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry and the delay, due to any fault on his part, shall be considered for extension of the time.” 4. Challenging the said Order, the present appeal came to be filed by the State. 5. Sri. Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services, would contend that as there are eight disciplinary proceedings pending against the Writ Petitioner, fixing a time limit of four months to complete the same would be improper and incorrect. He further pleads that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Writ Petitioner could not be completed due to dislocation of files at the time of bifurcation of the State. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the Writ Petitioner, he would submit that the two judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel shall not apply to the facts of the case. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner submits that the order under challenge warrants no interference. According to him, though four months time has been granted to complete the disciplinary proceedings, but till date no effort was made to proceed with the proceedings. According to him, though in respect of first issue, a report was submitted to the Government in the year 2002, till date no orders are passed. According to him, this circumstance is sufficient enough to quash the proceedings. It is urged that though the Writ Petitioner retired in the year 2016, the pensionary benefits, which he is entitled to are not released thereby putting him to untold misery. 7. The issue as to whether the departmental proceedings can be quashed due to abnormal delay in completing the same came up for consideration in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 . 7. The issue as to whether the departmental proceedings can be quashed due to abnormal delay in completing the same came up for consideration in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 . Dealing with the facts in issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined 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 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 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 delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, 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 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 its 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 or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration.” 8. Relying upon the judgment in N. Radhakishan case [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. MD. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration.” 8. Relying upon the judgment in N. Radhakishan case [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. MD. T.N. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636 held as under: “Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very 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 a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings 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. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefit shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs.” 9. From the judgments referred to above, it is very clear that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the delinquent employee is required to be concluded expeditiously and he should not be made to undergo mental agony and monetary loss. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that if the delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. The Court also went on to hold that in considering whether delay vitiates the disciplinary proceedings, the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. 10. The Court also went on to hold that in considering whether delay vitiates the disciplinary proceedings, the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. 10. Keeping in view the above guidelines, we shall now proceed to deal with the case on hand. 11. Admittedly, the Petitioner herein retired from service on 30.06.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. His pensionary benefits are not being settled on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The material placed before the court show that disciplinary proceedings in about eight cases are pending against the Petitioner. The details of which are as follows: Sl Case No. Details of the disciplinary case Charges framed 1. 9508/ TW.Ser. II.1/2000 TWED – Estt. – TW Division, Paderu – Drawel of advances indiscriminately and without executing the works – Allegations against Sri. Ch. Chinna Babu, formerly EE I/s. Paderu and Sri. A.V. Subba Rao, formerly Dy. E.E. (TW) Arukuvally entrusted the case to COI – Report received communicated to the Charged Officers – Regarding. That the said Sri. Ch. Chinna Babu while functioning as EE (I/c) TW, Paderu, Visakhapatnam during the period from 21.11.98 to 8.3.99 have committed certain serious irregularities in issuing huge advances to Dy. EE (TW) without adjustment. He has gone on issuing huge advances on several occasions without maintenance of records. That the EE I/c (TW) is said to have transferred Rs.29.00 lakhs on grants transfer basis to the former Dy. EE, Araku. The practice of issue of huge advances to one Dy. EE without insisting on adjustment of the previous advances is irregular and I/s. EE has failed to report the same to higher authorities. Further, there is no pursuance on part of the then EE I/s regarding adjustment of advances given by him to Dy. E.E.. He has also not obtained necessary requisition letters from AEE / Dy. EE before issue of advances. He failed to get the permission of higher authorities for executing the works departmentally. He has also violated orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 30, dated 17.2.94 by not getting the works done through the VTDAs. Under tourism grants the EE I/c has issued separate cheques on the same day i.e., on 8.3.99 to Dy. EE, Araku for Rs.4.00 lakhs and Rs.2.00 lakhs which is in violation of Financial and Treasury Code Rules. 2. He has also violated orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 30, dated 17.2.94 by not getting the works done through the VTDAs. Under tourism grants the EE I/c has issued separate cheques on the same day i.e., on 8.3.99 to Dy. EE, Araku for Rs.4.00 lakhs and Rs.2.00 lakhs which is in violation of Financial and Treasury Code Rules. 2. 13706/T W.Ser.II.1 /2001 Public services – ACB Disciplinary cases – Government servant placed on defense before the Disciplinary proceedings Tribunal – Orders – Issued. Case has been entrusted to Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceeding. 3. 6637/TW .Ser.II.1/ 2008 Public Services – Allegation of irregularities in execution of works “Providing B.T. to the road from Nittamamadi Junction to Gondau” VSP District – Sri Ch. Chinna Babu, Executive Engineer (TW) Department and other officials of Panchayat Raj Department – Certain material furnished – Submission of statement of defence – Regarding. That Sri. Ch. Chinna Babu, EE, TW, Visakhapatnam has failed to discharge his legitimate duties in execution of work “providing BT to the road from Nittamamidipalem to Gondau in Visakhapatnam District, loss to the Government Rs.8,57,250/-. 4. 8136/TW .Ser.II.1/ 2009 PUBLIC SERVICES – TWED – Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, I/C. Executive Engineer, Paderu, The Then Executive Engineer (FAC), Tribal Welfare, Division Utnoor – Departmental Proceedings under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules 1991 – Article of Charges – Issued. Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, I/C. Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu, the then Executive Engineer (FAC), Tribal Welfare, Utnoor has failed to remit the seignorage charges amounting to Rs.12,30,495/- (for the period from 30.04.2004 to 31.03.2005) recovered from the work bills of executing agencies under various grants during his incumbency period from 30.04.2004 to 18.05.2005 to the consolidated fund of the State, amounting to violation of Rule 26 (ii) A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966, G.O. Ms. No. 404, Industries & Commerce (Mines I) Department, dated 05.10.94, Para 33 of A.P. Public Works Department Code, Para 83 of A.P. Public Works Accounts Code, Treasure Rule 7 of A.P. Treasury Code and Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. 5. 5930/TW .Ser.II.1/ 2010 Public Servants – Tribal Welfare Engineering Department – G.A. (V&E) Report – Certain irregularities in adoption of rate for G.S.B. in the road works in Tribal Welfare Department of Visakhapatnam District – Vigilance report received – Requested to take Disciplinary Action – Regarding. Sri. 5. 5930/TW .Ser.II.1/ 2010 Public Servants – Tribal Welfare Engineering Department – G.A. (V&E) Report – Certain irregularities in adoption of rate for G.S.B. in the road works in Tribal Welfare Department of Visakhapatnam District – Vigilance report received – Requested to take Disciplinary Action – Regarding. Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu has committed certain irregularities in adoption of rate for G.S.B. in the road works in Tribal Welfare Department of Visakhapatnam District and to super checked the measurements and recommended for payment for the portion of the work not executed in the field causing a loss of Rs.2,39,091/- to Government. Hence, the charge. 6. 9038/TW .Ser.II.1/ 2010 Public Servants – Tribal Welfare Engineering Department – Establishment – Inspection conducted by the ENC T.W. works in the jurisdiction of Paderu Division – Draft Articles of Charges issued – Written Statement of defence received specific remarks called for. Charge: I Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu has committed the following irregularities in execution of the work PL Road Tajangi Road work under NABARD-X in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu. 1. He has diverted the funds and advances are kept in the bank account for long time. For the advances given the Executive Engineer has not monitored for proper adjustment in time. Resulting into temporary misappropriation of government funds and violation of Circular instructions of the Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare issued in Cir. Memo No. DEE/AE12/6774/94, dated 3.2.1998 and TA4/AEE5/6774/General Circular/94, dated 14.09.2000, Para 168 to 172 of A.P. Public Works Accounts Code and Article 300, 301 & 302 of A.P. Financial Code, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule -3 under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. 2. In spite of clear instructions to close the P.D. accounts and introduction of PAO system in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department to pay of all work bills through the concerned PAO, the Executive Engineer has advanced the amount to Deputy Executive Engineer and still running the financial transactions without completely bringing the transactions into the purview of PAO violating the government instructions, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule – 3 under A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. 3. 3. In spite of clear cut instructions of Engineer-in-Chief, Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad vide Circular Memo No. C1/3839/08 dated 5/09 to close all advances till March 2009 and to submit the compliance the same was not even communicated by the Executive Engineer to Deputy Executive Engineers for compliance and flouted the instructions resulting into financial irregularity, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule – 3 under A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. 4. In the road work, the deviations and alignment, Gradient negotiation requirement are very critical and are absolutely left to the subordinate staff without any guidance or assistance by the Executive Engineer resulting into lapse on the department, as this work was taken up under departmental execution was lingering from last two years, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule – 3 under A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. Charge: 2 Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu has committed the following irregularities in execution of the works of Degree College Hostel for Boys, Degree College Hostel for Girls under RIAD in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu. 1. These works are being completed without any fore-thought about the requirement of the toilets or washing facilities and as such there are no proposals from the Executive Engineer to put these buildings into complete usage. This attitude of the Executive Engineer without having any planning for the water, electricity or drainage clearly speaks volumes about the indifferent attitude and make the department a laughing stock in the public as well as public representatives eyes, which amounts to violation of conduct Rule – 3 under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. Charge: 3 Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu has Committed the following irregularities in execution of the work Marripalem to Jogampeta road under RIAD – XIII under Phase-II in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu. 1. This work was taken up under RIAD – XIII under Phase-II and the progress of the work is at snails pace and it is observed that there was no clear-cut planning with regard to deletion of items, deletion of road length or with regard to requesting for additional funds from appropriate authorities, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule – 3 under A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. Charge: 4 Sri. Charge: 4 Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu has Committed the following irregularities in execution of the works Jogampeta, KD Peta, Y.M. Pakalu in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu. 1. Incorporated administrative sanction for toilets and baths, additional accommodation under CSS: The work is under basement level and the progress is far from satisfactory, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule – 3 under A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. Charge: 5 Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu has Committed the following irregularities in execution of the works “Providing BT surface Road Paderu, Pedabylu: Providing BT surface from Pannela Junction to Lakshmipeta” in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu. Administrative sanction is of Rs.235.98 lakhs. This is a major road and ghat or ghat like situation and a clear-cut idea with regard to the earth work in transportation of the gravel has to be evolved and it is left to the fate of the subordinate staff and the contractor. No clear-cut direction was given by the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer was directed to have thorough understanding of the work, incorporate all the provisions and deviations that may arise and a clear cut proposal has to be brought to the notice of the Engineer-in-chief, within a fortnight’s time, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule – 3 under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. Charge: 6 Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu, do not have control over his subordinate staff in the division office and has left the division office to the DAO/Advisor or the Manager completely and committed the following irregularities in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu. 1. A Divisional Accounts Officer has been appointed on contract basis on the instructions or permission from the Project Officer and literally the DAO/Advisor or the Manager is running the entire office and the Executive Engineer and other staffs are mere spectators. 2. The Executive Engineer has stopped signing in the Attendance register from September 2008. 3. The Executive Engineer is not signing the bills or tappal and does not have any control over the subordinate staff. 4. The official documents, all the agreements for the works are also being signed by the Executive Engineer without any dates. 5. 2. The Executive Engineer has stopped signing in the Attendance register from September 2008. 3. The Executive Engineer is not signing the bills or tappal and does not have any control over the subordinate staff. 4. The official documents, all the agreements for the works are also being signed by the Executive Engineer without any dates. 5. The Executive Engineer has not submitted any tour diary or journal after July, 2008 resulting into violation of office procedures, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule – 3 under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964. 7. 1044/TW .Ser.II.1/ 2009 G.A. (V&E) Deptt. – Verification of Engineering works pertaining to Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu, VSP Dist. Vigilance Report received – Action – Regarding. That Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, while working as Executive Engineer (I/c), Visakhapatnam District during the years 2008-2009 making pass order and recommending payments for items which are not executed. Thus he allowed huge loss to the government and grossly violated the guidelines issued by the government besides exhibiting scant respect towards his official duties in violation of the CC Rules. Hence, the charge. 8. 6802/TW .Ser.II.1/ 2009 TWD – GA (V&E) Dept., - Allegation against the Engineering officials (a) in laying road from PL R&B road to Thajangi under NABARD (b) improvements & repairs to tribal museum at Araku valley – Vigilance Report – Regarding. Charge No. 1 That Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, while working as Executive Engineer (I/c), Paderu, Visakhapatnam District during the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 making payment to the firm without any Technical sanction estimates against the Administrative Sanction accorded by PO, ITDA. Charge No. 2 That Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, while working as Executive Engineer (I/c), Paderu, Visakhapatnam District during the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 releasing advance payments and submitted the vouchers / bills to PO, ITDA without scrutinizing or making pass order. Charge No. 3 That Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, while working as Executive Engineer (I/c), Paderu, Visakhapatnam District during the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 for submitting the ..... 12. Insofar as Case No. 9508/TW.Ser.II.1/2000 is concerned, the Petitioner submitted an explanation to the charges and matter was referred to Commissioner of Enquiries, who completed the enquiry and submitted the report to the Government vide letter dated 31.08.2002. Though 18 years have lapsed, till date no orders are passed by the government. 13. 12. Insofar as Case No. 9508/TW.Ser.II.1/2000 is concerned, the Petitioner submitted an explanation to the charges and matter was referred to Commissioner of Enquiries, who completed the enquiry and submitted the report to the Government vide letter dated 31.08.2002. Though 18 years have lapsed, till date no orders are passed by the government. 13. In Case No. 13706/TW.Ser.II.1/2001, the matter was referred to Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, wherein after an enquiry a report was submitted stating that the prosecution failed to establish the charge framed against the Petitioner. A disagreement note was issued on 11.10.2017, to which the Petitioner has submitted his explanation. Thereafter, there is no progress in the matter till date. 14. Coming to Case No. 6637/TW.Ser.II.1/2008, the charge memo is of the year 2008 to which the Petitioner has submitted an explanation denying the charges. The head of the department was requested to submit specific remarks to Government vide Memo dated 29.02.2012, but no report is submitted to the Government and the matter is still pending. 15. Similarly Case No. 8136/TW.Ser.II.1/2009, Case No. 593/TW.Ser.II.1/2010, Case No. 9038/TW.Ser.II.1/2010 & Case No. 1044/TW.Ser.II.1/2011, charge memos, dated 31.03.2010, 14.12.2010 and 03.03.2010, respectively, were issued and accordingly, the Petitioner is said to have submitted his explanations on 27.04.2011, 09.07.2010 and 05.07.2011, respectively. Thereafter, till date there is no progress in these cases. 16. Insofar as Case No. 6802/TW.Ser.II.1/2011 is concerned, the Petitioner submitted an explanation to the charge memo and a report was called from ENC as per the memo issued by the Government dated 06.07.2011. 17. These aspects are not seriously disputed by the learned Government Pleader. But as stated earlier, the plea of the appellants appears to be that because of bifurcation of the State, there is delay and since eight proceedings are initiated, it would be difficult to comply them within the time prescribed by the learned Single Judge. 18. But, as seen from the record, the division of the State took place in the year 2014, but the proceedings were initiated in the year 2000, 2001, 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011, respectively, i.e., long prior to the bifurcation of the State. No explanation is forthcoming as to why these proceedings could not be completed till date or even after the time given by the learned Single Judge, to complete the proceedings. No explanation is forthcoming as to why these proceedings could not be completed till date or even after the time given by the learned Single Judge, to complete the proceedings. Even assuming that the allegations made in the said proceedings are grave in nature, but still there has to be some explanation as to why there is delay in completing the proceedings. 19. In fact, as observed earlier in Case No. 13706/TW.Ser.II.1/2001, though the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against the Petitioner, a disagreement note was issued on 11.10.2017, to which the Petitioner has submitted an explanation, but thereafter, there was no progress in the case till date. Therefore, the bifurcation of the State cannot be a ground for not completing the proceedings. 20. The second ground urged by the Appellant’s Counsel is that, there are eight proceedings pending and it would be difficult to complete the proceedings within the time prescribed. But, as seen from the record, these proceedings were initiated in the year 2000 and the last one is in the year 2011. There is no justification for the Appellant’s counsel to contend that the delay in completing the proceedings was due to number of cases. As stated earlier, these eight proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner over a period of time and the last one was in the year 2011. Hence, we hold that the Appellants have miserably failed to explain the delay in completing the proceedings and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it, more so when it is not the case of the Appellants that the Writ Petitioner was responsible for the delay in conducting the proceedings. 21. Having regard to the facts in issue and as the delay remained unexplained, the order under challenge warrants no interference. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 23. All the pending miscellaneous applications; if any, are closed.