ORDER : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “..... to issue any writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all retirement benefits including arrear of pension with appropriate interest and regular pension with all consequential benefits to the petitioner by declaring and setting aside the entire disciplinary proceedings including Charge Memo bearing Rc.No.5123/2012 A2 Dtd.30-05-2016 pending against the petitioner and the extent of the portion that Government have decided and hereby order to conduct departmental inquiry instead of prosecution on the petitioner in the Government memo No.53723/Vig.VI(2)/2012-2, Dtd.04-03-2014 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of articles 14,16,21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and pass such other relief or reliefs, as this Hon?ble Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he retired as Deputy Tahsildar on 30-09-2016 from the office of the District Supply Office, Srikakulam. While he was working as Tahsildar (Adhoc) at Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District, he was implicated in an ACB trap case along with the Revenue Inspector on the allegation that they demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000/-to do official favour to the de-facto complainant to process the file relating to conversion of his agricultural land into non-agricultural land. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension and an FIR was also registered against him. Subsequently, basing on the investigation report of the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, the Government issued a Memo No. 53723 / Vig. VI(2)/2012-2, dated 04-03-2014 directing the 2nd respondent to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner and the criminal prosecution launched against him was dropped vide Rc.No.07/2015 on 07-05-2015, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. i) In the course of departmental proceedings, the petitioner was served with a Charge Memo bearing Rc.No. 5123/2012 A2, dated 30-05-2016 for which he submitted an explanation dated 05-07-2016. Thereafter, the Forest Settlement Officer, Srikakulam was appointed as an Inquiry Officer vide Rc.No. 5123/2017/A2, dated 22-07-2017. After lapse of six months, the Inquiry Officer issued a notice dated 11-04-2018 directing the petitioner to attend a preliminary hearing in his office on 26-04-2018. Thereafter, the Forest Settlement Officer, Srikakulam was appointed as an Inquiry Officer vide Rc.No. 5123/2017/A2, dated 22-07-2017. After lapse of six months, the Inquiry Officer issued a notice dated 11-04-2018 directing the petitioner to attend a preliminary hearing in his office on 26-04-2018. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the Office where he was asked casual questions without conducting any departmental inquiry and he was asked to attend the regular inquiry whenever he receives further notice from him. Subsequently, the petitioner did not receive any notice either from the Inquiry Officer or from the Competent Authority i.e., the 2nd respondent either during his service or after his retirement. Further, even as on today, neither inquiry has not been conducted nor any orders have been passed on the disciplinary proceedings by the respondents. In the absence of any express by the competent authority, only provisional pension of 75% is being paid every month from the date of retirement of the petitioner, but Gratuity, Commutation of Pension and other arrears of 25% of pension are withheld by the respondents on the ground of pendency of the departmental/disciplinary proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Memo dated 04.03.2014 issued by the 1st respondent, it is specifically stated that no amount was recovered from the charged officer (petitioner herein) and the charged officer has collected the said amount as fine amount only as per oral orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and no official favour is pending with the charged officer/petitioner and finally it is observed that it is not a bribe amount. Therefore, the 1st respondent issued the Memo exonerating the prosecution against the petitioner, but ordering for a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and another is illegal and arbitrary and it is nothing but to harass the petitioner. Therefore, the 1st respondent issued the Memo exonerating the prosecution against the petitioner, but ordering for a departmental enquiry against the petitioner and another is illegal and arbitrary and it is nothing but to harass the petitioner. i) He further contends that the criminal case/prosecution was dropped by the 1st respondent Government itself after having conducted a detailed enquiry and investigation and the proposal for initiating the disciplinary proceedings for the incident which occurred in the year 2012 and issuing a departmental charge memo on 30.05.2016 after a lapse of four years and issuance of notice dated 11.04.2018 directing the petitioner to attend the preliminary hearing even after a lapse of six years are against the circular issued by the Central Vigilance Commissioner dated 18.01.2016, under which the Commissioner directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2018 and other Circulars of the 1st respondent. ii) He further contends that the said circular was issued by the Central Vigilance Commissioner pursuant to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010. Therefore, on the guise of pending disciplinary proceedings, withholding of pensionary benefits and denying the regular pension is in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. He further contends that pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was issued a notice on 11.04.2018 to appear before the enquiry officer on 26.04.2018. Except that notice, till today nothing proceeded further by the enquiry officer even after lapse of four years from the date of issuance of the notice. Therefore, the continuation of disciplinary proceedings is against the circular of the Central Vigilance Commissioner dated 18.01.2016 and also the Circular issued by the 1st respondent for conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the present writ petition has to be allowed. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents submits that though the petitioner was trapped in the year 2012, the Government vide Memo No. 53723/Vig.VI(2)/2012-2 dated 04/03/2014 issued orders for departmental enquiry instead of prosecution and also directed the DG, ACB, Hyderabad to send the AOCs, Statement of imputations to the 2nd respondent to conduct departmental enquiry and the DG, ACB, Hyderabad has sent the AOCs in Letter No. 146/RCTVSK/ 2012-S12 dated 30/04/2016 and hence, the contention of the petitioner that charges were framed on 30/05/2016 after lapse of 4 years is not correct. i) He further submits that the contention of the petitioner that disciplinary proceedings are not concluded even after lapse of seven years is not correct, since charges had been framed on 30/05/2016 and the petitioner had submitted his written statement of defence on 05/07/2016 and the Forest Settlement Officer was appointed as an Inquiry Officer in Rc.No. 5123/2017, A2 dated 22/07/2017 to conduct departmental inquiry and the inquiry process was already started by the Forest Settlement Officer/Inquiry Officer and since it is an ACB trap case where large number of witnesses are to be examined and voluminous material papers are to be verified, the inquiry could not be completed by the Inquiry Officer within the stipulated time. ii) The learned Government Pleader also submits that the Forest Settlement Officer, Srikakulam/Inquiry Officer has already been directed in this Rc.No. 5123/2012,A2 dated 14/12/2021 to expedite the inquiry and to submit an inquiry report and soon after receipt of the inquiry report further action against the petitioner and the then Tahsildar (Adhoc), Sarubujjili Mandal, shall be taken immediately to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against them. iii) In support of his submissions, the learned Government Pleader relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in L.Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.A.No.702 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022) wherein the Division Bench of this Court upheld the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11560 of 2021 dated 30.04.2022. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, the contentions of the petitioner that in view of the memo dated 04.03.2014, which was issued after having a detailed enquiry and investigation, it was found that the petitioner has not at all committed any offence; the alleged amount is also collected towards fine on the instructions of the then Revenue Divisional Officer and concluded the said criminal proceedings by dropping/exonerating the charges against the petitioner; it is again decided to conduct disciplinary proceedings instead of prosecution is nothing but to harass the petitioner; and continuation of the disciplinary proceedings in one way or the other even after the investigation held that the petitioner had not committed any offence is arbitrary and high handed action of the respondents, are valid and acceptable. Another contention of the petitioner that noncompletion of disciplinary proceedings even after eight years and nearly one decade to the subject incident which took place in the year 2012 and the said abnormal delay is fatal to their own circulars issued by the 1st respondent under which the maximum period prescribed is only 6 months and it is also against the circular issued by the Central Vigilance Commissioner dated 18.01.2016, is also sustainable and to be upheld, for the reason that the 1st respondent even in the year 2021 also issued a circular informing to all the Heads of the Departments to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of 3 months, but in rare cases it can be 6 months and also in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 958 of 2010 dated 16.12.2015. 7. The other contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, he was issued charge memo on 30.05.2016 for which he submitted an explanation on 05.07.2016 and thereafter, he retired from service on 30.09.2016, and post-superannuation, the petitioner was issued a notice on 11.04.2018 by the Enquiry Officer to appear before the enquiry officer on 26.04.2018 and the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer on that day, but till today, the said disciplinary proceedings are not completed and the petitioner was made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss as the disciplinary proceedings are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault of the petitioner, is also tenable, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 wherein it is held as follows: 18. In State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal goyal { (1995) 2 SCC 570 } State of Punjab was aggrieved by the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashing memo of charges against Goyal and also the order appointing Enquiry Officer to inquire into those charges. In this case the incident, which was the subject matter of charge, happened in December 1986 and in early January 1987, when Goyal was working as Superintendent of Nabha High Security jail. It was only on 09.07.1992 that memo of charges was issued to Goyal. He submitted his explanation on 4.1.1993 denying the charges. In this case the incident, which was the subject matter of charge, happened in December 1986 and in early January 1987, when Goyal was working as Superintendent of Nabha High Security jail. It was only on 09.07.1992 that memo of charges was issued to Goyal. He submitted his explanation on 4.1.1993 denying the charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed on 20.7.1993 and soon thereafter Goyal filed writ petition in the High Court on 24.8.1993. The High Court quashed the memo of charges on the principal ground of delay of five and a half years in serving the memo of charges, for which there was no acceptable explanation. This Court examined the factual position as to how the delay occurred and if Goyal had been prejudiced in any way on account of delay. This Court relied on the principles laid down in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S.Nayak { (1992) 1 SCC 225 } and said that though that case pertained to criminal prosecution the principles enunciated therein were broadly applicable to the plea of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as well. Referring to decision in A.R.Antulay case (supra) this Court said: (SCC P.576 para 11). “In paragraph 86 of the judgment, this Court mentioned the propositions emerging from the several decisions considered therein and observed that ‘ultimately the court has to balance and weigh the several relevant factors – balancing test or balancing process – and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case?. It has also been held that ordinarily speaking where the court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of the accused has been infringed, the charges, or the conviction, as the case may be, will be quashed. At the same time, it has been observed that that is not the only course open to the court and that in a given case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances may be such that quashing of the proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. At the same time, it has been observed that that is not the only course open to the court and that in a given case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances may be such that quashing of the proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a case, it has been observed, it is open to the court to make such other appropriate order as it finds just and equitable in the circumstance of the case.” In that case this Court said that it was more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time the Court directed that Goyal should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the enquiry, if he is found fit for promotion. 19. 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 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 the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. 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.” 8. On perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is revealed that continuation of disciplinary proceedings with abnormal delay of more than 10 years from the date of the alleged incident took place in the year 2012 and non-completion of the disciplinary proceedings even after issuance of charge memo dated 30.05.2016 is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD., T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 wherein it is held thus: “5. In the second case of N. Radhakishan (supra) the respondent was appointed as Assistant Director of Town Planning in the year 1976. A report dated 7-11- 1987 was sent by the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to the Secretary to the Government, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad about the irregularities in deviations and unauthorised constructions in multi-storeyed complexes in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in collusion with Municipal Authorities. On the basis of the report, the State issued two memos both dated 12-12-1987 in respect of three officials including the respondent Radhakishan, the then Assistant City Planner. In this case, till 31-7-1995 the articles of charges had not been served on the respondent. On the basis of the report, the State issued two memos both dated 12-12-1987 in respect of three officials including the respondent Radhakishan, the then Assistant City Planner. In this case, till 31-7-1995 the articles of charges had not been served on the respondent. The Tribunal, however, held that the memo dated 31-7-1995 related to incidents that happened ten years or more prior to the b date of the memo and that there was absolutely no explanation by the Government for this inordinate delay in framing the charges and conducting the enquiry against the respondent and that there was no justification on the part of the State now conducting the enquiry against the respondent in respect of the incidents at this late stage. This Court, in para 19, has observed as a follows: (SCC p. 165). “19. 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 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 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. 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 31-7-1995 and directing the State to promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos dated 27-10- 1995 and 1-6-1996. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh was dismissed.” 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the charge memo dated 30.05.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent and the further proceedings dated 14.12.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent. The respondent authorities are directed to take steps for payment of retirement/terminal benefits of the petitioner, if any, apart from fixation of regular pension as per his entitlement, in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.