ORDER : This writ petition is filed to declare non-payment of retirement benefits to the petitioner by the respondents on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings basing on the charge memo dated 23.06.1997 despite superannuation of petitioner on 31.07.2017, as illegal, arbitrary and consequential direction to the respondents to release of retirement benefits of the petitioner. 2. Heard Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel representing Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner on record and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents. 3. Brief facts that lead to filing of present writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Village Assistant in the year 1987 and the said post was subsequently re-designated as Panchayat Secretary and later on as Village Revenue Officer (VRO) and petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2017. While in service, the petitioner was issued with charge memo on 23.06.1997 by the 2nd respondent, wherein thirteen allegations were made against him and petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.08.1997 to the charge memo denying the same. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.12.1995 by the 2nd respondent even before issuance of the charge memo and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.3959 of 1996 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. on 19.06.2097 directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and if the enquiry is not completed within the stipulated period, the respondents are further directed to reinstate the petitioner into service without prejudice to the enquiry. Accordingly, suspension was revoked by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 20.10.1997. 4. It is further contended that show-cause notice was issued on 18.11.2003 by the 2nd respondent stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Peddapalli, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and he has submitted his report and that basing on the said report, why punishment of removal from service should not be inflicted on him. Petitioner submitted explanation/ representation on 03.12.2003 stating that no regular enquiry was conducted and there was no examination of witnesses and without there being any material, the enquiry officer could not find him guilty of the charges and requested the disciplinary authority to drop the proceedings. Petitioner submitted explanation/ representation on 03.12.2003 stating that no regular enquiry was conducted and there was no examination of witnesses and without there being any material, the enquiry officer could not find him guilty of the charges and requested the disciplinary authority to drop the proceedings. Petitioner once again approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.8182 of 2003 questioning the show-cause notice dated 18.11.2003 and the said O.A. was disposed of on 20.03.2006 directing the respondents to pass order on the explanation dated 03.12.2003 submitted by the petitioner. However, no orders have been passed on the showcause notice dated 18.11.2003 and no punishment has been imposed consequent to the said show cause notice. 5. Consequent upon creation of new districts in the State, the petitioner’s case is now within the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent. Even after lapse of considerable time, no action has been taken by the 2nd respondent on the show-cause notice. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits. Since respondents failed to release the retirement benefits, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Though the writ petition was filed in the year 2017, till date no counter has been filed by the respondents and no material or instructions are placed on behalf of the respondents on record as to whether any orders are passed on the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 03.12.2003 in response to the show-cause notice dated 18.11.2003. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that charge memo was issued in the year 1997 and show-cause notice was issued on 18.11.2003 basing on the purported enquiry report of the RDO, Peddapalli and despite specific orders of Tribunal dated 20.03.2006 in O.A.No.8182 of 2003, no orders have been passed till date on the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is further contended that in fact, no regular enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given, which is clearly contrary to the CCA Rules and therefore, the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer itself is sustainable. Further, petitioner was suspended on 18.12.1995 even before the issuance of charge memo dated 23.06.1997, which clearly shows the highhanded, illegal action of the respondents. 8. The learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the charge memo was issued on 23.06.1997, purported enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was submitted on 13.03.2003 and show-cause notice was issued on 18.11.2003, however, no further steps have been taken till date. 8. The learned counsel for petitioner further contended that the charge memo was issued on 23.06.1997, purported enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was submitted on 13.03.2003 and show-cause notice was issued on 18.11.2003, however, no further steps have been taken till date. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.07.2017 and even after lapse of seven years, petitioner has not been paid retirement benefits on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings and though about two decades have lapsed from the date of receipt of issuance of charge memo, the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded till date and no reason or explanation has been offered by the respondents for inordinate delay for non-conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, which clearly shows the conduct of the respondent in victimizing the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, disciplinary proceedings pending against an employee have to be completed expeditiously and further, instructions were also issued for expeditious completion of the inquiries and the same shall be completed within a period of three months in case of simple cases and six months in case of complicated cases. 10. Despite granting time, the learned Government Pleader for respondents neither filed any counter nor placed any instructions as to the status of the disciplinary proceedings and whether any orders have been passed on the explanation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the orders dated 20.03.2006 in O.A.No.8182 of 2003. 11. In State of A.P., vs. N.Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “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. 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. 20. In the present case we find that without any reference to records merely on the report of the Director General, Anti- Corruption Bureau, charges were framed against the respondent and ten others, all in verbatim and without particularising the role played by each of the officers charged. There were four charges against the respondent. With three of them he was not concerned. He offered explanation regarding the fourth charge but the disciplinary authority did not examine the same nor did it choose to appoint any enquiry officer even assuming that action was validly being initiated under the 1991 Rules. There is no explanation whatsoever for delay in concluding the enquiry proceedings all these years. The case depended on records of the Department only and the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau had pointed out that no witnesses had been examined before he gave his report. There is no explanation whatsoever for delay in concluding the enquiry proceedings all these years. The case depended on records of the Department only and the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau had pointed out that no witnesses had been examined before he gave his report. The Enquiry Officers who had been appointed one after the other had just to examine the records to see if the alleged deviations and constructions were illegal and unauthorised and then as to who was responsible for condoning or approving the same against the bye-laws. It is nobody's case that the respondent at any stage tried to obstruct or delay the enquiry proceedings. The Tribunal rightly did not accept the explanations of the State as to why delay occurred. In fact there was hardly any explanation worth consideration. In the circumstances 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. The Tribunal rightly did not quash these two latter memos.” 12. In P.V.Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “11. 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. 12. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. 12. 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 benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs.” 13. In D.Srinivas v. Govt. of A.P., Transport, Roads and Buildings (Vig.I) Dept., and others, 2013 (4) ALT 1 (DB), the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P., held as under: “18. Coming to the case on hand, it is to be noticed that the charge relates to the year 1998 and no steps were taken immediately on the subject-matter of the charge. Only pursuant to the complaint lodged against the Executive Engineer (Electrical) alone before the Upa-Lokayuktha, A.P., and basing on the ex parte preliminary enquiry report, proceedings were initiated which were later dropped. Thereafter, regular departmental enquiry is conducted and on one ground or the other the enquiry officers were changed, which is admitted in the counter-affidavit, stating that delay is only on account of administrative reasons. Having regard to the nature of charge and the plea of delay, we are of the considered view that there is abnormal and unexplained delay on the part of the disciplinary authority in completing the enquiry and imposing punishment. Such an action is contrary to the judgments referred above apart from the executive instructions issued by the Government itself. Even for the said reason, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 02.12.2011 passed in O.A. No. 8278 of 2011 and, further, order dated 04.12.2012 passed in Rev. M.A. No. 3802 of 2011, by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, is set aside. Consequently, the final order imposing punishment on the petitioner vide G.O. Rt. No. 734, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Vig.I) Department dated 28.07.2011 is quashed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits. No order as to costs.” 14. In State of Telangana and others vs. L.Galanna and another, 2016 (4) ALD 320 (DB), the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P., held as under: “4. No. 734, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Vig.I) Department dated 28.07.2011 is quashed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits. No order as to costs.” 14. In State of Telangana and others vs. L.Galanna and another, 2016 (4) ALD 320 (DB), the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P., held as under: “4. On a careful consideration of the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any explanation whatsoever offered by the petitioners for their failure to conclude disciplinary proceedings for a decade, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned cases was rightly applied by the Tribunal in quashing the disciplinary proceedings.” 15. From the catena of judgments referred to above, it is clear that continuation of disciplinary proceedings for long time without any justification or reason would result in grave injustice, mental agony and distress to the employee and in a given case, the disciplinary proceedings can be quashed depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.679, G.A. (Ser-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, the Government directed that the disciplinary cases initiated against the Government employees shall be completed as expeditiously as possible i.e., a normal time of 3 months and 6 months is allowed in simple and complicated cases, respectively. In case of abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, action shall be initiated against concerned inquiring authority. 17. There is no dispute with regard to issuance of charge memo to petitioner on 23.06.1997, issuance of show cause notice dated 18.11.2003 and submission of representation by the petitioner on 03.12.2003 and also the order dated 20.03.2006 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.8182 of 2003 . Despite specific direction of the Tribunal in O.A.No.8182 of 2003, till date no orders have been passed by the respondents on the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 03.12.2003. 18. In the above facts and circumstances and legal position, in considered opinion of this Court, further continuation of disciplinary proceedings even after inordinate period of more than two and half decades, is improper, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and settled principles of law. 19. 18. In the above facts and circumstances and legal position, in considered opinion of this Court, further continuation of disciplinary proceedings even after inordinate period of more than two and half decades, is improper, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and settled principles of law. 19. As per the decision of Division Bench of composite High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. K.Stanaka, 2018 (6) ALD 103 (DB), wherein the Division Bench awarded interest @ 9% per annum on delayed payments of pension and gratuity to be paid by the respondents, the petitioner herein is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on pension and gratuity from the date of his retirement i.e., 31.07.2017. 20. In the light of above discussion, facts and legal precedents, continuation of disciplinary proceedings/enquiry against the petitioner since 23.06.1997 without there being any progress is gross abuse and would lead to grave injustice, harassment, mental agony to the petitioner and also amounts to condemnation of the person and therefore, the impugned proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be set aside/ quashed. 21. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed and respondents are directed to pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum on pension and gratuity from the date of superannuation of the petitioner i.e., from 31.07.2017 together with all the monetary benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.