JUDGMENT : Ramesh Sinha, J. 1. Heard Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents on I.A. No. 02 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of 03 days delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No. 02 of 2023 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 2081 of 2023 (Surendra Sai Painkara Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 4. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 27.04.2015 when the appellant was posted as Sub Divisional Officer (Police) at Saraipali, District Mahasamund, a vehicle transporting illegal liquor was caught and it was parked in the Police Station Saraipali. On 02.12.2022, respondent No.2 issued article of charges on the ground that on 27.04.2015 the appellant seized 10 boxes of beer and 10 boxes of country made liquor from vehicle (Scorpio) bearing registration No. CG 13 CA/0825 and the said vehicle was brought at Police Station Saraipali, but the appellant without taking any action and without registering any case, released the vehicle at midnight. On 05.12.2022, the respondent no. 2 issued a show cause notice with intent to initiate departmental enquiry against the appellant. The appellant has preferred a writ petition bearing WP(S) No. 2081 of 2023, challenging the show cause notice dated 05.12.2022 and article of charge dated 02.12.2022 issued by respondent No.2, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Against the said dismissal order, present appeal has been preferred by the appellant with a prayer to set-aside the same and to quash the show cause notice dated 05.12.2022 and article of charge dated 02.12.2022 issued by respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that it is not the case of respondent department that they were not aware about cause of initiation of departmental enquiry at the time of incident though the preliminary enquiry report dated 04.06.2015 was very well available with the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that it is not the case of respondent department that they were not aware about cause of initiation of departmental enquiry at the time of incident though the preliminary enquiry report dated 04.06.2015 was very well available with the respondents. Inspite of that the respondents have not initiated action against the appellant for more than 07½ years shows the present action of the respondents as deliberate, vindictive and malafide. He further submits that the learned Single Judge also failed to appreciate the fact that the show cause notice dated 05.12.2022 does not contain any reason for the delayed departmental proceedings. He would further submit that in preliminary enquiry dated 04.06.2015, the appellant was found guilty, but no action was taken at that time. He would also submit that the delay of 07½ years has vitiated the very object of the departmental enquiry and it has been initiated on account of malafide. He would also submit that the petitioner is within the zone of consideration for promotion for next higher post and this departmental enquiry has been initiated deliberately. Thus, he would pray to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and to quash the article of charges dated 02.12.2022 and show cause notice dated 05.12.2022. He has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and Another, 1990 (Supp) SCC 738; P.V. Mahadevan vs. Md. T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 . 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents supports the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that the show cause notice and article of charges have been issued according to the provisions of law and in the preliminary enquiry, the appellant was found guilty, but he never challenged the outcome of enquiry report dated 04.06.2015. He further submits that the appellant has taken ground of malafide in his petition, but he has not demonstrated it by pleading or adducing sufficient material. He would also submit that the delay will not prejudice the appellant or vitiate the enquiry and the appellant is at liberty to participate in the departmental enquiry proceeding thereby taking all the available grounds. He would also submit that the delay will not prejudice the appellant or vitiate the enquiry and the appellant is at liberty to participate in the departmental enquiry proceeding thereby taking all the available grounds. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Akhilesh Jha & Anr., (2021) 12 SCC 460 . 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 8. The learned Single Judge after hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record and judgment cited by learned counsel for the parties, has rightly dismissed the writ petition observing as follows : “6. It is apparent that while the petitioner was posted as Sub Divisional Officer (Police) at Saraipali, District Mahasamund, a vehicle bearing registration No. CG 13 CA/0825 was intercepted and 10 boxes of beer and 10 boxes of country mad liquor were seized. The vehicle was handed over to the Police Station, Saraipali, but the petitioner without being ensured of taking legal action against the person as well as the vehicle, released the said vehicle alongwith the illegal liquor. The matter was brought to the notice of higher authorities where preliminary enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund on 04.06.2015. The preliminary enquiry contains the report of Police Station, Saraipali in the form of WhatsApp messages, photographs, news articles of Haribhoomi Newspaper, Roznamchasanhaa, list of police officer deployed on 27.04.2015 at Police Station Saraipali and RC book of seized vehicle. In the enquiry report, the petitioner has been found guilty of dereliction in duty and misconduct. 7. From preliminary enquiry report and annexed documents, it is apparent that the statement of the witnesses was recorded and the incident was investigated by the responsible officer of the police i.e. Additional Superintendent of Police who found the petitioner guilty, but on account of one or the other reasons the article of charges has been issued on 02.12.2022. It is also apparent from article of charges and show cause notice that the reason for delay has not been explained. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not committed any misconduct and he has been falsely implicated. It is also apparent from article of charges and show cause notice that the reason for delay has not been explained. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 11. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not committed any misconduct and he has been falsely implicated. The involvement of the petitioner has been proved in the preliminary enquiry and till date the petitioner could not challenge the order of preliminary enquiry before issuance of article of charges and show cause notice, whereas he was very much aware that departmental enquiry may be initiated against him. Looking to the charge against the petitioner, it appears to be serious and provable. Though, there is no explanation offered by the department in initiating departmental enquiry after more than 07 years, but it cannot be taken as sole ground to quash the article of charges and show cause notice. Counsel for the petitioner has further taken a ground that the petitioner is within the zone of consideration for promotion, but the inititation of departmental proceedings against him cannot be treated as malafide. The petitioner has also not pleaded as to what prejudice would be caused to him, if departmental enquiry is permitted to continue. 12. In the matter of P.V. Mahadevan (supra), there was delay of 10 years, whereas in the matter of Bani Singh (supra), there was delay of 12 years in initiation of departmental enquiry. 13. The conduct imputed against the petitioner is grave and serious, and the petitioner chose not to challenge the preliminary enquiry report for long 07 years. The petitioner has also not demonstrated the prejudice caused to him and as observed above every delay in conducting the disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Akhilesh Jha (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order and the fact that the appellant while posted as Sub Divisional Officer (Police) at Saraipali, District Mahasamund, intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. CG 13 CA/0825 and seized 10 boxes of beer and 10 boxes of country made liquor. No cost(s).” 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order and the fact that the appellant while posted as Sub Divisional Officer (Police) at Saraipali, District Mahasamund, intercepted a vehicle bearing registration No. CG 13 CA/0825 and seized 10 boxes of beer and 10 boxes of country made liquor. The vehicle was handed over to the Police Station, Saraipali, but the appellant without being ensured of taking legal action against the person as well as the vehicle, released the said vehicle alongwith the illegal liquor, in the enquiry report, the appellant has been found guilty of dereliction in duty and misconduct and the appellant chose not to challenge the preliminary enquiry report for long 07 years, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed.