ORDER : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashment of the show cause notice dated 21.10.2011 and also the charge sheet dated 13.07.2016 issued by the respondent no.1 and also prayed for a direction to release the retiral dues of the petitioner. 2. That petitioner was initially appointed as Sales Tax Officer through the examination conducted by the Respondent No. 3. Thereafter, he has been promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner and worked from 11.05.1999 to 29.07.2006 at the Zonal Office-2, Indore. 3. On 21.10.2011, respondents issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner stating, why three annual increment with cumulative effect should not be stopped. The aforesaid show cause notice issued by the respondents related to the 5 to 6 years old incident and therefore, petitioner was unable to submit reply on the basis of the memory and therefore, demanded the document and information from the respondent. On the basis of some of the information, petitioner submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice. 4. Even till 2016 respondents were unable to supply the information related with the above Show Cause Notice and therefore, the Commissioner at that time given opinion in petitioner’s favour for closure of the aforesaid show cause notice against him. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 07.04.2018 for personal, hearing in the case and also requested for quashment of the said show cause notice but no action was taken by the respondent thereon. 5. Due to the pendency of the said show cause notice the respondent during the year 2012 to 2014 has not considered petitioner in the DPC for promotion from Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner and his report kept in the sealed envelope on the wrong ground that a Departmental Enquiry was pending against him. The petitioner asked the information under right to information from the respondent regarding any pendency of the Departmental Enquiry in the year 2012, 2013, and 2014. In response to that on 07.05.2014 the respondents supplied the information that no such departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner submitted a representation which were accepted by the respondents and promoted him to the post of Deputy Commissioner by order dated 21/05/2015, wherein, the petitioner was entitled for the said promotion from the year 2010 itself. 6. In response to that on 07.05.2014 the respondents supplied the information that no such departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner submitted a representation which were accepted by the respondents and promoted him to the post of Deputy Commissioner by order dated 21/05/2015, wherein, the petitioner was entitled for the said promotion from the year 2010 itself. 6. The respondents without supplying the information with regard to the Show Cause Notice of the year 2011 again issued on the similar ground a show cause notice dated 13.07.2016 to the petitioner. Petitioner again demanded the documents related to the said show cause notice. As per the available information petitioner submitted a reply on 07.04.2018 to the respondents denying the allegation against him. 7. In the year 2020, Divisional Deputy Commissioner Division-2 supplied requisite information in regard to the above show cause notice that were available for replying to the show cause notices. After obtaining the said information from the respondents, on 01.06.2020 petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice denying each and every allegation against him regarding any financial loss caused by him to the respondents. 8. The respondents after the superannuation on 26.06.2020 appointed the enquiry officer in his Departmental Enquiry by order dated 29.07.2020 just to harass the petitioner and created a ground for withholding his all retiral benefit. On 29/6/2020 petitioner wrote letter to the respondents to requesting them to supply the status information on his representation dated 1/6/2020 regarding pendency of departmental enquiry, if any. He also sent two reminder letters dt. 4/7/2020 and 27/7/2020 for grant of the all his retirement benefits. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issuance of the charge sheet in the year 2016 in regard to the lapses committed by the petitioner for the period from 1999 to 29.07.2006 after the lapse of about 10 years is illegal and arbitrary. The show cause notice was issued in the year 2011 and thereafter, in the year 2016 almost on the same ground the show cause notice was issued, which was duly replied by the petitioner after supplying the documents but thereafter no decision was taken to appoint the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. 10. The petitioner was supplied information vide letters dated 07.05.2014 and 06.05.2014 Annexure P/9 (Collectively) that no departmental inquiry was pending against him. 10. The petitioner was supplied information vide letters dated 07.05.2014 and 06.05.2014 Annexure P/9 (Collectively) that no departmental inquiry was pending against him. Thus, the so called show cause notice dated 21.10.2011 had automatically lost its efficacy and had become non-existent. The charge sheet was issued in the year 2016 and after the reply filed by the petitioner, no decision was taken. He got retired on 30.06.2020 and after his retirement and during the pendency of the petition by letter dated 29.07.2020 Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The said order was challenged by way of amendment and the same was allowed on 22.09.2020 and the court passed interim order that no further inquiry shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order. 11. The respondent filed the reply and raised objection that the petition suffers from delay and latches. The show cause notice was issued on 21.10.2011 and the charge sheet was issued on 13.07.2016 and the petition has been filed after nine years. It is also argued that the petitioner has committed irregularities for the period from 10.05.1999 to 29.07.2006 while being posted as Assistant Commissioner. It was alleged that he did not submit the scrutiny report within time after inspection of shops and due to his careless act, revenue loss has occurred to the State Government. 12. It is pleaded that the documents as sought by the petitioner in pursuant to the show cause notice were supplied to him on 03.03.2012 and therefore, the letter dated 07.04.2018 was issued. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this court does not find any merit in the objection raised by the respondent that the petition suffers from delay and latches. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the said show cause notice on 16.02.2012 and 29.02.2012 Annexure P/6 and P/7 and demanded the documents and information to file effective reply. The petitioner had written a letter dated 07.04.2018 for personal hearing in the case and requested for quashment of the show cause notice vide letter dated 07.04.2018 Annexure P/8. 14. When the case of the petitioner was not considered in the DPC for promotion from Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner and was kept in a seal cover, he had written letters dated 07.05.2014 and 06.05.2014 Annexure P/9. He was informed that no such departmental inquiry was pending against him. Thereafter, he was promoted on 21.05.2021. 14. When the case of the petitioner was not considered in the DPC for promotion from Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner and was kept in a seal cover, he had written letters dated 07.05.2014 and 06.05.2014 Annexure P/9. He was informed that no such departmental inquiry was pending against him. Thereafter, he was promoted on 21.05.2021. When his pension case was not being finalized due to the show cause notice dated 21.10.2011 and charge sheet dated 13.07.2016, he filed the present petition. Thus, there is no delay or latches. 15. He got retired on 30.06.2020 and after his retirement, the charge sheet has been issued on 29.07.2020 in respect of the lapses of the year 1999 to 2006 after the period of 21 years. In between the petitioner was informed that no departmental inquiry was pending against him on 07.05.2014 Annexure P/9 and he was promoted by order dated 21.05.2015 to the post of Deputy Commissioner. Thus, the delay on the part of the respondent for issuance of the charge sheet in the year 2016 in respect of lapses of the year 1999 to 2006 after 10 years and after that appointing of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer after the retirement of the petitioner after the lapse of about 4 years is nothing but an abuse of exercise of powers. The appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer after the retirement in respect of lapses of the year 1999 to 2006 is nothing but an act in order to harass the petitioner to withhold his retiral dues. Thus, the order is based in colorable exercise of powers. 16. From the aforesaid facts, it is further clear that after the issuance of the show cause notice on 16.02.2012, the petitioner has been promoted by order dated 21.05.2015 to the post of Deputy Commissioner on the recommendation of departmental promotion committee after considering his ACR and the record. Thus, the charges / alleged misconduct stands condoned. 17. In the case of Lal Audhraj Singh Vs. State of MP and Ors. reported in AIR 1967 MP 284 , in which it is held that an employee if he is promoted inspite of alleged misconduct and once the lapse of the misconduct is condoned by promoting him, the same cannot be a basis for further punishment and cannot be detrimental to the interest of the employee. 18. State of MP and Ors. reported in AIR 1967 MP 284 , in which it is held that an employee if he is promoted inspite of alleged misconduct and once the lapse of the misconduct is condoned by promoting him, the same cannot be a basis for further punishment and cannot be detrimental to the interest of the employee. 18. The respondents have not explained the delay in respect of issuance of the charge sheet and thereafter the appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer in respect of lapses of 21 years old. 19. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is also pellucid that the department had issued the first notice in the year 2012 in respect of lapse from 1999 to 2006 and thereafter the charge sheet was issued in the year 2016 after the lapse of 10 years and the disciplinary authority and presenting officer were appointed by the order dated 29.07.2020 after the lapse of 21 year. The respondents have not given any satisfactory explanation for any direct delay in issuing the memo, therefore, on the ground of delay as well, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Bani Singh and Others reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308 . The relevant para no.4 of the judgment is reproduced as under :- "4. The appeal against the order dated 16.12.1987 has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal should not have quashed the proceedings merely on the ground of delay and laches and should have allowed the enquiry to go on to decide the matter on merits. We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The irregularities which were the subject matter of the enquiry is said to have taken place between the years 1975-1977. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. According to them even in April, 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal." 20. The similar view has been taken in the case of PV Mahadevan Vs.s MD TN Housing Board reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 . The relevant para no.11 of the judgment is reproduced 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. 21. The same has been followed further in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N.Radhakishan reported in AIR 1998 SC 1833 and by the Division Bench in the case of Sadashiv Shivra Garud and Ors Vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors. reported in 2003 (4) MPLJ 183 . 22. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. N.Radhakishan reported in AIR 1998 SC 1833 and by the Division Bench in the case of Sadashiv Shivra Garud and Ors Vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors. reported in 2003 (4) MPLJ 183 . 22. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice dated 21.10.2011, the copy of the charge sheet dated 13.07.2006 and order dated 29.07.2020 Annexure P/21 appointing the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer are quashed. 23. As a consequence, his all retiral dues shall be refixed and the revised PPO shall be issued within the period of two months from the date of filing of the order. The petitioner shall be entitled for the retiral dues from the date it became due till the same is paid with 6% interest. 24. No order as to cost.